Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

Re: Concerns about the "l" element name <l>

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:35:00 +0200 (EET)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0411041304100.3996@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Thomas O'Connor wrote:

> I believe that it is vital for semantic purposes that definition lists
> remain how they are in HTML 4.0 through to XHTML 2.0 unless
> another name:value element set is included.

Here we go again. A definition list is a list of definitions. If you don't
know the definition of "definition", or more exactly don't care about it,
you can use <dl> for whatever you like - for formatting. And the W3C has
shown the way in the grossly self-contradictory section on <dl> in the
HTML 4 specifications.

There should be no <dl> element in XHTML 2.0, unless it is intentionally
designed to be compatible with traditional abuse of <dl> in HTML.

If you want something that really means a list of definitions, you should
at least name it differently, to avoid association with <dl> and to make
the markup less cryptic. On the other hand, you might also consider how
useful such a specialized construct is. Shouldn't we _first_ have markup
for a single definition, before considering a list of definitions (which
would appear to be a simple compound idea, composed of "list" and
"definition")? This would get rather complicated, since it's a real
problem and not just a made-up one, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/def.html 

> Definition lists allow for a huge number of name:value pairs to be
> semantically marked up in a way that cannot be reproduced through any
> other element set.

If you mean a set of name:value pairs, why do you call it a definition
list? And what's the _meaning_ (semantics)? It sounds like pure abstract
structure.

> Of course there are always tables, but they are more
> restrictive in their styling and positioning, plus are a bit of overkill.

If you mean that a special case of a table, namely a table with two
columns, needs specialized markup, then let's discuss _that_ (and not
definition lists). And if you have problems in formatting, then that's a
styling issue - and shouldn't it be solved in a manner that helps in
formatting, say, 1-column and 3-column tables, too?

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 11:35:32 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.