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

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

From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 22:17:54 -0500
Message-ID: <E054D7CD-D661-40C3-9C17-3377E768079C@michelf.com>
Le 2007-02-09 ? 12:32, David Latapie a ?crit :

> 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


As Anne pointed out earlier, HTML4 says this:

> Definition lists vary only slightly from other types of lists in  
> that list items consist of two parts: a term and a description.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.3>

Although not clearly stated in the HTML4 spec, it's pretty certain  
that the two parts (term and description) were meant to appear in  
this particular order within a definition list because you cannot  
formalize the term/description association if you allow <dt> and <dd>  
to appear in any order.

The WHATWG spec formalises term/description groups as I said --  
starting with a <dd> or ending with a <dt> is non-conformant. But the  
new spec certainly could be more explicit about what happens to non- 
conformant lists starting with <dd> or ending with <dt>.

<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-dl>


>> 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)

By improving the current spec, by going back to what you were using  
with HTML4, or by ignoring the spec and doing it anyway. I'm  
advocating the former.


Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 19:17:54 UTC

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