W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: html 5 and accessibility issue

From: Dannii <curiousdannii@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:07:19 +1000
Message-ID: <af3e73120706302007q4e1748c7hd0deeb632c148d7d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "aurélien levy" <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, public-html@w3.org
Isn't it really:

<dl>
 <dt> Term A </dt>
 <dd> Definition 1 of Term A </dd>
 <dd> Definition 2 of Term A </dd>
 <dt> Term B </dt>
 <dt> Synonym for Term B </dt>
 <dd> Definition of Term B </dd>
</dl>

On 7/1/07, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
>
>
> aurélien levy wrote:
> >>> because actually i can do :
> >>>
> >>> <dl>
> >>>  <dt> 1st terme </dt>
> >>>  <dd> 1st terme description </dd>
> >>>  <dd> 2nd terme description </dd>
> >>>  <dt> 2nd terme </dt>
> >>>  <dt> 3rd terme</dt>
> >>>  <dd> 3rd terme description</dd>
> >>> </dl>
> >>>
> >>> with no way for AT to know that 2nd terme description is actually
> >>> the 2nd terme description and not the second description of the
> >>> first terme
> >
> > the html 5 spec say :
> > dt can be before |dd| or |dt| elements inside  |dl| elements.
> > dd can be after |dt| or |dd| elements inside |dl|  elements.
> >
> > that's the case in my example
>
> I think you're misunderstanding the spec.  That's simply describing the
> order in which elements may appear within the dl.
>
> The content model for <dl> states:
>
> | Zero or more groups each consisting of one or more dt elements
> | followed by one or mode dd elements.
>
> So the groups are created by implicitly grouping all consecutive <dt>
> elements followed by all consecutive <dd> elements.  Regardless of what
> you wanted to achieve in your example, the "2nd terme description" is
> defined to be the second dd of the first group.
>
> >> It's also not clear what the use case for doing so is.  Just swap
> >> the <dt> and <dd> for the 2nd term and description, and it gives
> >> the intended meaning.
> >
> > Because i can want to have my description visually before his term (i
> > know i can achieve that with css but most of people simply choose the
> > simplest way).
> > Even a full dd dt structure in this order validate in html 4
> >
> http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fairytells.net%2Fdltest2.html
>
> In HTML4, although it would validate, it would never really have the
> meaning you want.  The first <dd> would have no associated term, and the
> last <dt> would have no associated description.  HTML5 fixes this bug in
> HTML4 that allowed descriptions without terms because it makes no sense.
>
> Ideally, the correct way to achieve the layout you want would be with a
> stylesheet, or possibly XBL.
>
> Personally, I'm not convinced of use case.  I just can't imagine why one
> would want to order them like that using any method.  But if that is a
> real use case, and is something you have done before, it would help if
> you could provide real world examples to demonstrate how and explain why
> it has been used.  You can then document it in the wiki, and record the
> various possible solutions with their pros and cons.
>
> Robert Burns wrote:
> > Its possible we could add more structure to a definition list like
> > XHTML2 did with:
> >
> > <dl>
> >     <li>
> >         <dt></dt>
> >         <dd></dd>
> >     </li>
> > </dl>
> >
> > This might help make a stronger association and even allow reversing
> > the normal HTML 4.01 order  for these elements.
> >
> > If there's a use case for such more complicated definition lists we
> > would need to come up with though (if necessary).
>
> That structure has been considered before, but, IIRC, so far rejected
> due to lack of convincing use cases.
>
> (if you're going to document this in the wiki, I recommend searching the
> WHATWG archives for related discussion and include <di> as a possible
> alternative to <li>)
>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
> http://lachy.id.au/
>
>
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 03:07:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT