- From: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:52:48 +0000
Matthew Raymond wrote: > Dean Edwards wrote: > >> Matthew Raymond wrote: >> >>> I did a quick test, and using <li> in a <dl> produces a bullet on >>> Firefox, IE and Opera, whereas <di> and the complete lack of a parent >>> element did not. So, <li> didn't break anything, but it really didn't >>> have the desired rendering on legacy browsers. This alone it a good >>> argument for defeating <li> in this context. Plus, there's the >>> additional fact that <di> is already in the XHTML 2.0 working draft, >>> which means that it'll be easier to get <di> through W3C than <dl>/<li>. >> >> >> That's a shame (about XHTML2). This seems a pretty unnecessary element. > > > Depends on what you mean. I think some kind of grouping tag is > necessary. You could argue that <li> can fulfill that role, but that's > not the same as saying that a grouping tag isn't needed at all. > I didn't mean that we don't need a grouping element (although "nice to have" is more accurate). I meant that <li> would do fine. <di> is just something else for me to remember... Now that I know that <di> is already defined in XHTML2 it no longer seems a big deal. :-) -dean
Received on Saturday, 12 March 2005 09:52:48 UTC