Because the data is tabular?
Seriously though, it's not just a list, it's an ordered list.
But seriously, you can play that game forever. At some point, you have to pick one definition and stick with it. This site uses tables.
Not worth arguing over in all but the lowest levels though.
I can't believe this thread has 49 comments (and counting). What a classic bicycle shed.
But seriously, what do you mean degenerate case of tables? CSS?
I suppose my biggest gripe is a statement like that; once understood and learned, HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use. It's easier to code, re-code, fix, format, and just generally muck around with.
Aside from that though, inconsequential.
HTML w/ CSS is actually easier to use
You just don't seem to get that I don't use html. I generate it. Your argument is like saying it's easier to write programs in old-style instruction sets than RISC ones. Sure, but the best approach of all is to write in neither, and instead have a program generate it. Then it doesn't matter which you use.
Complaining that the html source of a software-generated site is ugly is like complaining that the code generated by the compiler of a high level language is ugly. Of course it's ugly; that's the whole point of high level languages.
1. Your generated code is fast becoming obsolete, even IE passed Acid 2 the other week. That might be a concern.
2. What do you do to fix it when things go wrong, especially given number 1?
1. Ignore web standards, 2. Forgo readability, or 3. Make bloated code.
I mean, look at the source of hacker news. Its just not elegant. Whether or not you believe it should be, HTML/CSS was designed to be coded a certain way and browsers expect that format. Why change it and suggedt that you're turning HTML into something it isn't ?
2. Html is object code. What matters is the readability of the source code that generates it. Worrying about the readability of the output of a compiler is akin to premature optimization.
3. The front page of News.YC is 30k. If you think that's bloated, I hope you don't visit sites that contain images.
Do you understand what I mean about the distinction between source and object code? Saying that html ought to be elegant implies that you don't. As a rule, the more elegant the language, the less elegant its object code is, because the further removed its concepts are from the primitive concepts used by a compiler.
2. I guess we know where you stand on the semantic web, don't we! :-) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web)
3. It's your bandwidth money. I'm not paying for it. (Of course, I would disagree with the GP that HN is bloated)
2. Ill admit defeat on this point. (but see below)
3. With all the td, tr, etc tags, it seems messy. I don't know for sure, but I think using a stylesheet could reduce the size. I'll code hacker news in CSS when I have a few minutes and try to get the HTML+CSS under 30k.
Relatively, its a small site. That's awesome because it loads fast and I can comment using my treo, like I am now. Thanks for spending so much energy on speed.
But if it can be smaller by using CSS, I think that's a reason to switch. Don't you?
Anyway, regarding source/object code, I don't mean to disagree with you. I'm just saying that HTML was designed to be looked at and Hacker News disregards all of the convention there. I guess that's okay, its just extremely unusual.
As for speed, no: when you've got a site down to 30k, you shouldn't be spending time making it smaller.
Are you sure HTML was designed to be looked at? I thought it was a subset of SGML, which as far as I know was a portable representation for the kind of documents that would ordinarily be seen with a WYSYWG editor. But even if HTML had been designed to be manipulated by hand, the general trend in technology is always away from that. Machine language was designed to be looked at. Then technology advanced and people started using programs to generate it.
Are you saying that the future of HTML looks like what happened to machine language?