My complaint about the semantics of your solution would be that you use two lists while it is actually one.
The point of semantics is that the document itself represents the structure of the data and should not contain anything that implies something visual. In other words it should group data but not specify what it should look like. So it should not say wether text should be big or bold, or in our case tell if the list should be displayed in two columns. If you would look at the document without CSS there would be two lists while it essentially is one.
If I say that the document can’t specify wether text should be big or not, I mean that in a entirely presentional way. It should specify that the text is a header for example, which would in most browser display in a bigger font. Same goes for italics or bold, if you emphasize text it will be displayed in italics in most browsers, strong emphasis is often displayed as bold text.
The problem with your classnames is that you specify ‘left’ and ‘right’, which basicly controls the visual aspect instead of structural.
I don’t agree that arguing over the quality of the articles is useless or offensive.
This article needs improvement and that should be said. We all learn from this discussion and excellent alternatives have been proposed.
What does bother me is the continuous repeating of “let’s do it with a floated li with a width of 50%”
So to get back on the main issue here, I’ve done this in the past by floating li’s with a width of 50% - oi I’m contradicting myself in the above paragraph.
I do have to reconsider if it’s a good idea to split ordered lists anyway.
To conclude I would like to thank the author for posting this since a useful discussion has been initiated. As a sidenote I think ALA should’ve used their new icon to emphasize on the non-pure semantics.