Re: Is the design of <dl> tag flawed?

Hi Ian, while the design pattern you describe may make more sense, it is
often not practical or possible to change the behaviour of implemented
features. The reasoning for not pursuing the case you describe here, was
explained to you over on the WHATWG issue
<https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/2076>

Having reviewed the issue, I agree with the response provided there by
Domenic Denicola

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>

On 24 November 2016 at 02:05, Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> wrote:

> The design of <dl> tag is possibly flawed. Here are two points that
> describe the possible flaw:
>
> * dl designed to be independent of ul and ol implies that dl is neither
> an unordered nor an ordered list.
> * The spec for dl does not provide a method for defining whether a dl is
> unordered/ordered. Even if it does, the purpose of the method would overlap
> with the purposes of ul and ol.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense that <dt> and <dd> tags be in ul and ol
> elements instead so that when we want to write an unordered and an ordered
> description lists, we would write the following two pieces of code?
>
> <ul>
>     <li>
>         <dt></dt>
>         <dd></dd>
>     </li>
>     <li>
>         <dt></dt>
>         <dd></dd>
>     </li>
>     <li>
>         <dt></dt>
>         <dd></dd>
>     </li>
> </ul>
>
> <ol>
>     <li>
>         <dt></dt>
>         <dd></dd>
>     </li>
>     <li>
>         <dt></dt>
>         <dd></dd>
>     </li>
>     <li>
>         <dt></dt>
>         <dd></dd>
>     </li>
> </ol>
>