Hi Paul, > > > I understand what you want to use, I'm just saying that I'm not > sure about > > > the semantics. > > > DD stands for Definition Description so I don't think these > descriptions > > > should start with "are those". I think it should be a > > "standalone" sentence. > > > You are creating a bridge between DTs and DDs that should not exist > (imho). > > > > Or, to put it another way, what the OP really wants is not a <DL>. > > > Can you find any support for this assertion in the spec? > http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/lists.html#h-10.3 > > I'm seeing neither normative nor informative specifications for the > linguistic grammar of a description. The HTML spec says nothing about > standalone sentences or fragments in this context, probably because > that would be outside its purview. If you check I think you'll find > that most dictionary definitions are not complete sentences, e.g. > <http://google.com/search?q=define%3Atechnician>. The OP's semantic > content is clearly that of a definition list: terms and descriptions. > What constructive goal do we achieve by attempting to constrain the > grammar (in any given human language) of document content?
I think the distinction to make is that DDs are not definitions, but *descriptions*. Also, as I mention in my previous post, I do not agree that "the OP's semantic content is clearly that of a definition list", I'd say <dfn> would be a better choice. Anyways, I think we should move this discussion to the WSG list... -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
