- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:36:21 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > As use cases were requested for the DI element: > > 1. Identifying a definition group. > 2. Editing a definition group > > When you have a list of items: > > <dl> > <dt>foo > <dt>bar > <dt>baz > <dd>terms > <dd>programmar's slang > <dt>HTML > <dt>CSS > <dd>Internet languages > </dl> > > ... there is no simple way to identify a definition group. You'd still have to identify them in the "complicated" manner to take <di>-lacking content and wrap <di>s around them. > One way would be to give the first DT element an ID attribute but than > the definition for ID would have to be changed. Also, when later through > contentEditable a new DT element is inserted above the DT element with > an ID attribute the ID attribute would have to be moved. > > (It is useful to have an ID attribute for FAQs, et cetera where you want > to link to the answers.) Sure, but then the same applies to linking to a paragraph and placing another related paragraph before it, or linking to a subsection and adding a subsection before it. > It also makes editing of a definition group easier. Say users may edit a > single group, you do: > > <dl contentEditable="false"> > <dt>foo > <dt>bar > <dd>terms > <dt contentEditable="true">HTML > <dt contentEditable="true">CSS > <dd contentEditable="true">Internet languages > </dl> > > ... however, now you can't insert new definitions like "XML" or new > descriptions. Using the opposite does enable that (setting > contentEditable to true for the DL element and setting it to false for > all elements that shouldn't be editable) but it creates another problem > namely that people can insert new definitions. I agree, but we already have this problem again in general for this, e.g. you want to be able to add elements to <ol> but only edit a particular part of am <li> or something like that. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 10:36:21 UTC