Re: html 5 and accessibility issue

On Jun 30, 2007, at 11:07 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>>>> <dl>
>>>>  <dt> 1st terme </dt>
>>>>  <dd> 1st terme description </dd>
>>>>  <dd> 2nd terme description </dd>
>>>>  <dt> 2nd terme </dt>
>>>>  <dt> 3rd terme</dt>
>>>>  <dd> 3rd terme description</dd>
>>>> </dl>
>>>> with no way for AT to know that 2nd terme description is  
>>>> actually the
>>>> 2nd terme description and not the second description of the  
>>>> first terme
>>> Actually, no, you can't. What you're doing is not conforming to  
>>> either
>>> HTML 4 or HTML 5.
>> How is the code of aurelien's example definition list not conforming
>> to html 4.01?
> It is technically conforming, but the example is trying to  
> associate a <dd> with a subsequent <dt>, which has never been  
> possible.  It's also not clear what the use case for doing so is.   
> Just swap the <dt> and <dd> for the 2nd term and description, and  
> it gives the intended meaning.

Just to clarify what Lachlan is saying, the HTML is valid. However,  
it is non-conforming, if that's the meaning its supposed to convey. A  
<dt> can have any number of associated <dd> element's after it.  
However <dd>'s are always associated with the nearest preceding  
sibling <dt>. The

It would have to mean:

  <dt> 1st terme </dt>
  <dd> 1st terme description </dd>
  <dd> 1st terme 2nd description </dd>
  <dt> 2nd terme </dt>
  <dt> 3rd terme</dt>
  <dd> 3rd terme description</dd>

according to the spec (where the is no description associated with  
the second term and 2 descriptions associated with the first term).  
I'm not sure if that's clearly and explicitly conveyed in the  
existing HTML5 draft, but that is the case with HTML4.01. I don't  
imagine the draft means to change that from HTML 4.01.

Its possible we could add more structure to a definition list like  
XHTML2 did with:


This might help make a stronger association and even allow reversing  
the normal HTML 4.01 order  for these elements.

If there's a use case for such more complicated definition lists we  
would need to come up with though (if necessary).

Take care,

Received on Saturday, 30 June 2007 16:28:44 UTC