W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: what is dt?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:30:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4AB05BE2.1040105@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Jeremy Keith On 09-09-15 22.42:

> Shelley asked:
>> For the past ten years or so, dl, dt, and dd have been defined  
>> within the context of a definition list. People may have used them  
>> for other things, but no where has there been even a hint that such  
>> use was "acceptable" or appropriate.
> 
> The HTML 4 spec gives more than a hint, advising authors (incorrectly)  
> to use dl, dt and dd for dialogues.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#edef-DL
> 
> "Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues,  
> with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words."


And what is the problem with using <dl> for that? What was so 
"incorrectly" about it?

 
>> But we dropped dialog in favor of paragraph elements, and using bold  
>> <b> for the person ....(!?)
> 
> I concur completely with both your exclamation point and your question  
> mark. It's nutty advice that will be ignored by authors.

Indeed.

>> And we've managed to find two new, completely different uses of dt  
>> and dd.
> 
> Less than ideal, I agree, but far, far better than using <legend>.  
> Using <dt> is the lesser of 18 evils.

I actually proposed <figure><dt><dd></figure> back i Februar this 
year ... [1]

In February /last/ year, I proposed using <dl figure> instead of 
<figure> ... [2] . And <dl dialog> instead of <dialog>.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0207
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0368
-- 
leif halvard sillli
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2009 03:31:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT