DT/DD in FIGURE expected with switched meanings

Just an impression of mine: I am surprised to see the meanings of DT  
and DD elements, when they are children of FIGURE, as they are.

I would expect them used just in opposite way. The logic of mine is  
like this:

In case of using these elements as children of DL, DT has the role of  
"term", "general name", "attribute" from the attribute-value pair,  
etc. and DD has the role of extension, explanation, something  
additional, variable, or just more specific. The DT-DD in DL  
relationship hopefully might be described as similar to heading- 
following content relationship.

In case of DT/DD in FIGURE, I would expect the same approach. But the  
current specification describes these element oppositely: DT carries  
the meaning of description while DD contains the "primary" content.

Since this state makes almost no sense for me, I would really like to  
hear the way *you* look at FIGURE's children (and understand)... Thanks.

Peter

Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 08:49:56 UTC