- From: Rowland Shaw <Rowland.Shaw@crystaldecisions.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 05:53:54 -0700
- To: "'Marcos Caceres'" <marcos@datadriven.com.au>, www-html@w3.org
> Rowland, those examples are great. Thanks, I may not contribute a great deal in volume, but I try to make up for it in quality. > I hadn't gone as far as thinking about it > in conjunction with xml:lang. I think this combined with Ernest 'di' > (definition item) solution would make for a nice improvement to definition > lists. 'di' would be consistent, both with dd/dt/dl and also to draw parallels with <li> The current guidelines might suggest that 'di' is a little too abbreviated, but I believe that the consistency is more important in this case (after all, a 'di' is always going to appear in a 'dl' and always contain one or more of 'dt' and 'dd') The other example I considered adding was a simple translation dictionary: <dl> <di> <dt xml:lang="fr">Salut!</dt> <dt>Hi!</dt> <dd>Informal, friendly salutation</dd> </di> <di> <dt xml:lang="fr">Bonjour</dt> <dt>Hello</dt> <dd>Formal salutation</dd> </di> </dl> > Personally, I prefer Ernest <di> ... </di> solution: I think it's easier to > use, looks semantically and structurally sound, and inline with the way > other lists are constructed. I prefer the encapsulation methodology for exactly the reasons you state
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2003 08:54:20 UTC