[whatwg] [html5] DI element

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
> 
>>Cool. I hadn't really thought about this situation. Let's see if I 
>>can fit it into my previous <section>/<h> proposal:
> 
> Isn't that just the proposal from XHTML 2.0? Also, that is not backwards
> compatible.

    It's similar, but I've elaborated on it significantly. My model 
allows for both <h> and <h#> elements. The example I gave was simple a 
WA1-only example. Here's how it would work with <h#> elements:

| <section>
|   <h1>HEADING1</h1>
|   <p>This is a paragraph related to heading 1.</p>
|   <p>This is a paragraph related to heading 1.</p>
|   <section>
|     <h2>HEADING 1.1</h2>
|     <p>This is a paragraph related to heading 1.1.</p>
|     <p>This is a paragraph related to heading 1.1.</p>
|   </section>
|   <p>This is a paragraph related to heading 1.</p>
|   <p>This is a paragraph related to heading 1.</p>
| </section>

    In my model, <h> automatically determines importance based on the 
nesting of its parent <section> element. So if you use <h> for 
"HEADING1", <h> is semantically the same as <h1>. The same is true for 
"HEADING 1.1": <h> is the same as <h2>.

>>>I support including both SECTION and DI. But if SECTION isn't 
>>>required, I cannot see why DI should be required.
>>
>>Apples and oranges. For instance, why couldn't unordered or ordered 
>>lists within a definition list be used?
> 
> Huh? DI is intended for grouping DT and DD elements, not for grouping DD
> elements.

    I was reworking a previously posted example that only included 
multiple <dd> elements. Don't assume that I wasn't applying the same 
logic to <dt> simply because I didn't give an example of such.

> Also, the definition of CSS is not an ordered list containing
> two separate items. The definitions are separate.

    Looking over the HTML 4.01 specification, it does appear that <dt> 
and <dd> are defined as only containing a single term or definition, so 
you may have a point. The <di> element may be necessary for grouping 
multiple terms and definitions.

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2005 14:39:25 UTC