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 donā??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.