Hi,

what's about (similar to nl):

<ul>
<li>
    <ul>
        <label  xml:lang="fr">Salut!</label>
        <li>Hi!</li>
        <li>Informal, friendly salutation</li>
    </ul>
</li>
<li>
    <ul>
        <label xml:lang="fr">Bonjour</label>
        <li>Hello</li>
        <li>Formal salutation</li>
    </ul>
</li>
</ul>

... or even better:

<ul>
<section>
    <h xml:lang="fr">Salut!</h>
     <ul>
            <section>Hi!</section>
            <section>Informal, friendly salutation</section>
    </ul>
</section>
<section>
    <h xml:lang="fr">Bonjour</h>
    <ul>
         <section>Hello</section>
         <section>Formal salutation</section>
    </ul>
</section>
</ul>

(... or maybe h being in ul ?)


Rafael Gieschke


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rowland Shaw" <Rowland.Shaw@crystaldecisions.com>
To: "'Marcos Caceres'" <marcos@datadriven.com.au>; <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: dl, dd, dt in XHTML 2.0


>
>
> > 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
>