- 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