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

DI element [Re: html 5 and accessibility issue]

From: Andrew Ramsden <andrew@irama.org>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 21:06:39 +1000
Message-ID: <46878ABF.6010301@irama.org>
To: aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
CC: public-html@w3.org

This may be off-topic for "html 5 and accessibility", but I agree with 
your assertion that a di element would clarify the semantic relationship 
between dt and dd elements.

The specific use-case of dl that I see as ambiguous without a di element is:
<dl>
     <dt></dt>
     <dt></dt>
     <dd></dd>
</dl>

Does this represent a two terms (one without a definition), or a single 
term with two possible term variations?

The addition of a di element could explicitly clarify the two situations:
<dl>
     <di>
         <dt></dt>
     </di>
     <di>
         <dt></dt>
         <dd></dd>
     </di>
</dl>

or:

<dl>
     <di>
         <dt></dt>
         <dt></dt>
         <dd></dd>
     </di>
</dl>


It would also is backwards compatible with current HTML UAs (the added 
di elements don't affect the rendering of the content).


I'd appreciate feedback about this suggestions.

Kind Regards,
Andrew Ramsden



aurélien levy wrote:
> 
> 
>>> it's not at all, in your case, the visual rendering is the same but 
>>> the semantic is different, in my case the visual rendering is the 
>>> same and still have the same semantic (in the case of using di 
>>> element or a for attribut mechanism)
>> I wasn't aware that you suddenly changed your original example to 
>> include some non backwards compatible construct. My apologies.
> my example was just here to show that i can need a di or for mechanism 
> in response of your demand after the original message :
> "- dt/dd need a reel relationship like the for attribut on label 
> mechanism "
> 
> The html 5semantic definition of the dl element is non backwards 
> compatible with the current definition of dl element since the html 4 
> didn't say if the dt must be before or after the dd element (or i miss it)
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 17:06:51 GMT

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