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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:11:23 +0200
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrew Ramsden" <andrew@irama.org>, "Andrew Sidwell" <takkaria@gmail.com>, aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tuvs49wtwxe0ny@pc052.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:57:55 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Ben Boyle wrote:

>> ...
>> Take away the <di> and it becomes necessary to use all kinds of
>> redundant tags (or as I was told on the microformats wiki, "don't use
>> definition lists in this manner".)
>> ...
>> <dt>Fax</dt>
>> <dd class="tel"><span class="type">Fax</span><span class="value">####
>> ####</span</dd>
>> ...
>> That's my use case. I never said it was great :)
> I think it's a fine use case, but I don't think it needs any changes to
> HTML. Why can't the microformats parsers just be defined such that they
> respect the semantics of a <dl>, and allow the use of a class on <dt> to
> indicate something about the associated <dd>s?

Because it means they have to write their own microparser to actually  
interpret those semantics, unless there is a magic API that exposes the  
grouping to them. Whereas microformats leverage the structure of HTML to  
add semantics not available in the language itself.



   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 Tuesday, 3 July 2007 09:11:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC