Re: what is dt?

Jeremy Keith wrote:
> Shelley wrote:
>> Yes, I think that, among our other concerns, we can also include a 
>> concern about the mnemonics of dt/dd in Figure.
>
> I agree that it feels counterintuitive to use <dt>/<dd> inside 
> <figure> but, IMHO, it does make sense inside <details> simply because 
> the word "details" begins with a letter D — just as dt/dd made sense 
> inside <dialog> when that element existed.
>
> So if we're going to discuss either:
> a) finding a better element to recycle for captioning <figure>s or
> b) creating a new element for captioning <figure>s,
> I think it would be good to keep <details> out of the discussion.
>
Last I heard, Figure was a completely separate element from Details. I 
agree with you, and also believe it is a grave error to continue 
treating them as if they are joined at the hip.

And I'm assuming that your reference to the letter D is an attempt at 
humor? Pretty good.

Shelley