- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 22:48:27 +1000
- To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 7/3/07, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> > No, I'd want it to work just the same as <tbody>
>
> I just explained why handling it like <tbody> doesn't work.
>
> > (there's no implicit "tbody" in the DOM/API stuff is there?)
>
> The <tbody> element is inferred by the HTML parser if the tags are
> absent.
Hmm. Parsing is not my strong suit, forgive any misunderstandings ...
I just did a test here, a simple HTML doc with a table and no <tbody> elements.
Then I applied some styles:
tr > td {
border: 1px solid blue;
}
tr > tbody > td {
border: 1px solid red;
}
The borders are blue (Firefox 2). There is no "implied tbody" (as I
understand it, as an author!) I also tested <di> and it did nothing...
couldn't access it for styling. No surprise, it's not in any current
spec.
Parsing aside, I believe my use case still relevant for a <di>
element. Others have stated their cases.
XHTML2 also gives a rationale:
The term and its definition can be grouped within a di element to help
clarify the relationship between a term and its definition(s).
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-list.html#edef_list_di
(I know, I know, put it on the wiki)
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:48:48 UTC