- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 01:21:44 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15056 --- Comment #4 from Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> 2011-12-08 01:21:43 UTC --- 1. So far, I haven't see any poll or study which can prove "Adding extra markup wouldn't make them better-defined" and "it would just introduce more possible ways for authors to make mistakes". At least my viewpoints are the opposite. I was recently involved in a project in which I have to add one large image next to each <dt>/<dd> pair in a FAQ-like content. However, because currently there is no <li> allowed in <dl> in HTML source code, I had to wrap each <dt>/<dd> pair with a <li> through javascript and then I can define background images for <li>s. Not that I suggested introducing <li>s for <dl> purely out of styling purpose, but the case above reminded me that, for both reasonable structure and convenient styling, <dl> needs <li>s like <ul> and <ol> do. 2. Let us simply face the truth that the meaning of "small" has nothing to do with "side comment" in English dictionaries. Wouldn't it be far-fetched to give irrelevant meanings to a deprecated element? 3. Well, I'm not sure if "Tel" and "Fax" are that important enough to deserve strongly emphasis. Maybe definition list is enough to do the job, as long as I don't have to add one large image next to each <dt>/<dd> pair. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 01:21:57 UTC