You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When the scholarly.html is created, the reference lis are put in an unordered list (ul). Is there any reason for this not to be an ordered list (ol), as is specified in the w3c spec?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
egonw
added a commit
to egonw/norma
that referenced
this issue
May 28, 2016
Good suggestion. The "scholarly Html" is not yet W3C consistent and has much of the original markup from the publisher. We first have to decide what the Reference section is. We may also need to check any publisher numbering - some number this section and others do not.
When the scholarly.html is created, the reference
li
s are put in an unordered list (ul
). Is there any reason for this not to be an ordered list (ol
), as is specified in the w3c spec?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: