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 sillliReceived 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