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

Re: Definition items as nested DL elements (was Re: DI element)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:43:19 +0200
To: "Thomas Broyer" <t.broyer@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tuujehlswxe0ny@pc052.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:47:59 +0200, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> 2007/7/2, Charles McCathieNevile:

>> There are a number of cases where a term might be listed
>> without a definition.
>
> Probably, but then shouldn't an empty <dd> be provided? (actually, a
> <dd> with an ellipsis or a "to be defined" content would probably be
> better)
>
> Could you give examples of some of these cases? I cannot find any
> apart from the "to be defined" one.

The cases that I have in mind are all broadly "to be defined". But I do  
not see that I should have to provide an empty definition. The natural  
approach would be to build a list of terms, and add definitions as  
appropriate. The current algorithm precludes that, assuming that the  
behaviour it prescribes (which includes having an empty dd rather than not  
having an element) is natural to authors. The proposal provides a way to  
offer authors a choice of what they want to represent.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com    Catch up: Speed Dial   http://opera.com
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 16:43:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC