W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2007

[whatwg] Fwd: Re: Heading, binding, LH (was:XSLT: HTML 5 --> HTML)

From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:32:40 +0100
Message-ID: <20070209183240349586.716450db@empyree.org>
----- D?but du message transf?r? -----
<small>Part of the thread that was accidentally sent privately, not on 
the list
It may be worth reading for other, so I transfer</small>

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:40:32 -0500, Michel Fortin wrote:
> That was my idea of what you were doing. With this syntax there's no 
> association between the description and the image, I'm not sure you 
> caught that from my explanation though.

I did not. And I still don't get it.
A dd shall (must?) be attached to a dt
A dt shall (must?) be attached to a dd

There is only one of each, so they shall be attached, in my mind. What 
is wrong in my thinking

(by the way, this may be off-topic for the list. I am not sure, since 
by finding what is wrong, we *may* end up making some proposals)

> With the current state of the <figure> element, you can't do this. I 
> remember proposing a while ago that <figure> accepts more than a 
> single embedded elements. That seem to be a good use-case.
> 
>     <figure>
>       <img ...>
>       <img ...>
>       <img ...>
>       <legend>...</legend>
>     </figure>

So, if figure doesn't allow this, how can it be done? With present 
specs and with future specs?
(of course, I'm not talking of rendering but of semantics there)

Thank you
-- 
</david_latapie>             U+0F00
http://blog.empyree.org/en (English)
http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Fran?ais)
http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 09:32:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:32 UTC