- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 01:01:06 +0200
- To: ernestcline@mindspring.com
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Ernest Cline wrote: > > >>[Original Message] >>From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> >> >>Maybe dl could be dropped. > > > I certainly hope not. While the semantics of what exactly a <dl> > is and should be used for is a matter of some contention, they > serve a semantic propose that cannot be adequately handled > by any other simple structure, namely that of indicating sets of > relationships. The closest one could come to expressing it > would be to do something like the following, with the classes > indicating what equivalent roles are being performed: > > <table class="dl"> > <tr class="di"> > <th> > <div class="dt" /> > <div class="dt" /> > </th> > <td> > <div class="dd" /> > <div class="dd" /> > </td> > </tr> > </table> > > Of course, you'd also have to use a goodly quantity of CSS to > get anything approaching the default presentation of a <dl>, > but that is of secondary importance to the semantic of > relationship pairs. Whether those pairs are of terms and > definitions, questions and answers, roles and dialogs, or > any other pairs of relationships is of far lesser importance > semantically. Well, it was just a thought (and not a very well-thought-out one). What if you could have is something like this: <ul> <li>bla</li> <di> <dt>bla</dt> <dd>blu</dd> </di> </ul> Where the di would still indicate it is a definition. But I don’t really think I would be in favour of that. ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Monday, 30 May 2005 23:01:06 UTC