- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:02:51 +0100 (MET)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3t-nerd@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org
Dan wrote: > Hakon, have you flipped? Hope not, let's examine! > I just noticed that the new sample REC uses tables > to lay out the title page: I have to object to the using the term "lay out", but, yes, it uses tables. > http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/REC-sample > (linked from > http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports#style) > > I object. What's wrong with a DL? DL should be reserved for definition lists, e.g. glossaries. Strictly speaking, the title page has no definition list. E.g., the *term* "This version" is not defined by the string/hyperlink "http://.....". And, the *term* "Authors" is not defined by "Hakon Lie". True, "Hakon Lie" may be the author, but the *term* "author" has significance beyond someone's name. The table element does not come with any implied semantic. No semantics is better than wrong semantics. The examples in HTML40 confirms my understanding of what DL is. But the last paragraph does not: 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. This is tag abuse! May I ask for an errata? An secondary reason for using tables is that their formatting is more consistent than the DL element, and they arguably look better than DLs do. > Besides: you're not following: ... > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-WAI-PAGEAUTH/#gl-table-markup Thanks for pointing this out, I will look into it. -h&kon H å k o n W i u m L i e howcome@w3.org http://www.w3.org/people/howcome World W i d e Web Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 1999 05:02:56 UTC