- From: Hugh Guiney <hugh.guiney@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:48:57 -0500
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Jordan Dobson <jordandobson at gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds like what you want is flex box. Have you looked at that yet? I don't know flexbox too well yet?how would one use it to create a columnar <dl>? From what I can tell though, it still wouldn't allow me to style <dt>/<dd> pairings as a single unit, which is actually the root issue here. On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Bruce Lawson <brucel at opera.com> wrote: > Seems to me no need to add a new element. If <div> could be a child of <dl> > then you could use that. > > However, it can't. I don't know why, though. I would probably avoid <div> in this case simply because it's supposed to be semantically blank; in the example I gave, if <section> were <div> instead, it would be completely appropriate for an outliner to regard that as two sections instead of three. So, if we're going to reuse an element like that, I'd lean more toward <section>?although I can't recommend this either as it implies that bits and pieces of <dl>s should show up in the document outline. I think that <di> or <li> or even <dl> children of <dl> (all of which have been suggested in the past) make the most sense here. As a developer it doesn't matter to me which one it is; I could just use the flexibility.
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 00:48:57 UTC