- From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:39:12 +1000
- To: Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>
- Cc: Alex Bishop <alexbishop@gmail.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 20/07/12 10:52 AM, Ian Yang wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Alex Bishop<alexbishop@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote: >> >>> Since the *optional *use of<li> in<dl> could solve many problems, may we >>> >>> have<li> being valid in<dl>? >>> >> Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as the proposed<di> element: >> >> >> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#HTML_should_group_.3Cdt.3Es_and_.3Cdd.3Es_together_in_.3Cdi.3Es.21 >> > Thanks. However, the drawbacks mentioned in that document is about the > nonexistent<di>, not the existent<li>. Yes, that whole section is misleading, as has been discussed before: - The benefit of <di> or <li> is not just styling - There's no indication that a CSS solution will be developed anyway - As you say, none of those reasons apply to <li> > <li> in<dl> is rendered without problems in IE6+, FF3.6+, Chrome, and > Safari. Only in Opera that definition term and the bullet aren't at the > same line. > > Furthermore, browsers need to be compliant with the standards, not the > standers need to be compliant with browsers. If the latter were true, we > wouldn't have had so many new HTML5 elements to use. > Well, the browser vendors need to agree somewhat before the standard becomes a standard. And at the moment there's lots of cool new stuff to implement, as well as many browser discrepancies and *real* bugs to fix, so I think it will be some time before anyone looks at this issue properly. regards, Sean
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 01:39:42 UTC