- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:11:23 +0200
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Andrew Ramsden" <andrew@irama.org>, "Andrew Sidwell" <takkaria@gmail.com>, aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:57:55 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Ben Boyle wrote: >> ... >> Take away the <di> and it becomes necessary to use all kinds of >> redundant tags (or as I was told on the microformats wiki, "don't use >> definition lists in this manner".) >> >> ... >> <dt>Fax</dt> >> <dd class="tel"><span class="type">Fax</span><span class="value">#### >> ####</span</dd> >> ... >> >> That's my use case. I never said it was great :) > > I think it's a fine use case, but I don't think it needs any changes to > HTML. Why can't the microformats parsers just be defined such that they > respect the semantics of a <dl>, and allow the use of a class on <dt> to > indicate something about the associated <dd>s? Because it means they have to write their own microparser to actually interpret those semantics, unless there is a magic API that exposes the grouping to them. Whereas microformats leverage the structure of HTML to add semantics not available in the language itself. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 09:11:49 UTC