W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Comments on the XHTML 2.0 WD

From: Edward Lass <elass@goer.state.ny.us>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:57:29 -0400
Message-Id: <s295f20f.042@mail.goer.state.ny.us>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

>>> David Håsäther <hasather@gmail.com> 5/26/2005 3:36:08 PM >>>
>
> I'm not sure I agree using a definition list with only terms, and no 
> definitions makes sense, though. Can't think of any circumstances where 
> that would be appropriate, got any examples?

How about an incomplete glossary?  It could be wiki-based or on an individual page in progress.

To say there's no definition--or at least not yet--one could leave the element out entirely.  That seems preferable over "<dd/>" to me.

- Ed.
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 19:57:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:04 UTC