- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:47:59 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
2007/7/2, Charles McCathieNevile: > > The suggestion made by someone that a singleton dt is "stupid" is > incorrect. Apologies for this term, English is not my mother tong so sometimes I've a hard time finding my words... > There are a number of cases where a term might be listed > without a definition. Probably, but then shouldn't an empty <dd> be provided? (actually, a <dd> with an ellipsis or a "to be defined" content would probably be better) Could you give examples of some of these cases? I cannot find any apart from the "to be defined" one. > If anyone wants to play with a proof of concept for di, Amaya has it at > least in its authoring structure - I am not sure if it explicitly makes it > available for styling. It is certainly useful in building a WYSIWYG > interface to manipulate dl contents. How about using nested DLs ? They're as easy to style and script as DIs and are more "interoperably implemented" in major current UAs (tested in Firefox, IE7, Opera 9.21 and Safari 3.0.2 for Windows). Experiment at http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cstyle%3E%0Adl%20%7B%20background%3A%20orange%3B%20border%3A%201px%20dashed%20red%3B%20%7D%0Adi%2C%20dl%20%3E%20dl%20%7B%20display%3A%20block%3B%20background%3A%20yellow%3B%20border%3A%201px%20dashed%20orange%3B%20margin%3A%205px%200%3B%20%7D%0A%3C/style%3E%0A%3Cp%3EWith%20DI%3A%0A%3Cdl%3E%3Cdi%3E%3Cdt%3Eterm%201%3Cdd%3Edefinition%201%3C/di%3E%3Cdi%3E%3Cdt%3Eterm%202%3Cdd%3Edefinition%202%3C/dl%3E%0A%3Cp%3EWith%20nested%20DL%3A%0A%3Cdl%3E%3Cdl%3E%3Cdt%3Eterm%201%3Cdd%3Edefinition%201%3C/dl%3E%3Cdl%3E%3Cdt%3Eterm%202%3Cdd%3Edefinition%202%3C/dl%3E%3C/dl%3E%0A%3Cp%3Etext%20following%20the%20DLs -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 12:48:05 UTC