Re: Comments on the XHTML 2.0 WD

On Thu, 26 May 2005, Kelly Miller wrote:

>
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> At least it should be named "description list", with subelements called
>> "item" and "description" for example. It is absurd to say that <dt> means
>> definition term and then tell people to use it to name a speaker.
>> 
> If you ask me, <dt> and <dd> are unnecessary anyway.  Why not create a 
> "description" element for lists, and allow it in ANY list?  Using CSS, one 
> could make it disappear or display in a certain way, and then people can add 
> extra info about the list item if necessary instead of having to use a whole 
> separate thing if they want to do descriptions.  Especially considering XHTML 
> 2.0 expects you to use <li href=""> to do a hyperlink in a navigation list 
> now.
>
> IMO, it should be possible to do:
>
> <ul>
>   <li>Item 1</li>
>   <ld>Item 1 is the first item in this list.</ld>
>   <li>Item 2</li>
>   <ld>Item 2 is the second item in this list</ld>
> </ul>
>
> Admittedly, this is not a good example of how one would use the list.  A 
> better one would be something like this:
>
> <nl>
>   <li href="">First Link</li>
>   <ld>This link takes you to the Home page of this site.</ld>
>   <li href="">Second Link</li>
>   <ld>This link takes you to the Sitemap.</ld>
> </nl>

I don't think this is a very good example either. Consider this:

<nl>
    <li href="" title="This link takes you to the Home page of this 
site.">First Link</li>
    <li href="" title="This link takes you to the Sitemap.">Second 
Link</li>
</nl>

I do think that the suggestion of simply renaming "definition list" to 
"description list" is a good one. This will allow for more flexible usage 
and would allow for the example of conversations and other things to be 
decently marked up.

Christian

> You could even put link subreferences in the <ld>'s, and thus create a 
> glossary for people who may not completely understand your terminology. 
> Don't get rid of <dl>, just have it use <li> and <ld> instead of <dt> and 
> <dd> (which, as has been mentioned, are actually semantically incorrect, 
> because not every use of a DL contains terms and descriptions).
>
>

MVH
Christian

Received on Friday, 27 May 2005 07:14:53 UTC