- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:46:35 +0200
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
Smylers On 09-09-17 18.18: > Shelley Powers writes: >> Smylers wrote: >> Except now, when seemingly dt and dd have become HTML5 silly putty: >> good for a hundred and one uses. > So it's actually <dl>, <details>, and <figure> which have different > uses. <dt> and <dd> are 'building blocks' which each of those happen to > contain. Agree in principle about 'building blocks'. <li> is also the building block of both <ul> and <ol>. > And they hardly have completely different uses: in all cases the <dt> is > being used to label the <dd>, so they're comparable (in a way which, > say, using the same element for each of <meta>, <li>, and <tbody> would > not be). > > <dt> is an awful name for an element which means 'figure caption'. > Indeed it's hard to think of anything which could be a worse name. But > it isn't entirely inconsistent with other uses of <dt>. Do we need to call it a caption? Could we not say "description"? The draft sees <dl> as a "description list", with <dd> as the description of the <dt>. However, inside <figure> the <dt> becomes the description of the <dd> ... If we instead consider <dl> - still - a "definition list", then it becomes clearer ... -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 16:47:25 UTC