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

Re: DI element [Re: html 5 and accessibility issue]

From: Andrew Ramsden <andrew@irama.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:40:41 +1000
Message-ID: <4688BA09.5040301@irama.org>
To: Andrew Sidwell <takkaria@gmail.com>
CC: aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, public-html@w3.org

Fair enough, as it was pointed out, this particular case is fairly well 
understood under HTML 4 and will be clearly defined under 5, but as 
Robert Burns so artfully phrased the issue:
"providing rich hierarchical structured mechanisms within the languages 
will also facilitate use-cases we can't think up"

DI may not actually change the semantics of groups of <dt>s and <dd>s 
but it will make it harder for content authors to mis-interpret, and 
provide a more robust/flexible language for the future (as <dl>s without 
<di> groups could then be deprecated).

This is not a radical idea, its stolen straight from the pages of XHTML2 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-list.html#edef_list_di), and as pointed 
out by Thomas Broyer, has been discussed previously 

On the whole the idea seemed fairly well received on the list, I'm not 
sure why it didn't make it in at that point.

Bottom line is: It takes the /implied/ semantics of definition lists and 
makes those relationships /explicit/, at no harm to content authors, 
user-agents or you!

I think its worth a rethink.

Thanks for discussing the idea.
Andrew Ramsden

Andrew Sidwell wrote:
> Andrew Ramsden wrote:
>> 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?
> In what way is it a definition term if it's not used as part of a
> definition?  The only common-sense answer is that both terms share the
> same definition.
> Andrew Sidwell
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 08:40:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:08 UTC