Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Matthew]

Lea de Groot wrote:

  I'm not sure that we should use the information that 'the W3C hasn't 
corrected anyone on this' as confirming evidence - to my knowledge they 
have never corrected anyone on anything.
  

True, they don't usually name names. They have to be diplomatic but
they occasionally talk about specific products. Eg,

Which browsers accept the media type
application/xhtml+xml?
Browsers known to us include all Mozilla-based browsers, such as
Mozilla, Netscape 5 and higher, Galeon and Firefox, as well as Opera,
Amaya, Camino, Chimera, DocZilla, iCab, Safari, and all browsers on
mobile phones that accept WAP2. In fact, any modern browser. [...]
  Does Microsoft Internet Explorer accept the media type
application/xhtml+xml?
No. [...]
  

On http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Forum/ they point out incorrect
implementations.

But yeah, they usually talk in abstract about common mistakes, Eg,
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/



.Matthew Cruickshank
http://holloway.co.nz/

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Mordechai Peller]

Peter Firminger wrote:
Is a list with one item really a list?
   

Yes absolutely. If there is one person in a room and you are asked to list
the names of the people in the room then the list will have one name.
 

Your example work because there's an unknown number. In cases where 
there's only one item without the possibility of more, then a list of 
one makes no sense. A dl might sometimes be an exception because of the 
relationship aspect.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Lea de Groot]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:14:20 +1300, Matthew wrote:
> What you say as "makes sense" is not expressed in the W3C standards, 
> and the W3C haven't (to my knowledge) corrected anyone.

I'm not sure that we should use the information that 'the W3C hasn't 
corrected anyone on this' as confirming evidence - to my knowledge they 
have never corrected anyone on anything.

Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet 
Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web 
Design
Brisbane, Australia
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Mike Brown]

Bert Doorn wrote:
Just to clarify my point.  I did not mean to ask whether it is "possible" to
call a list of one item a list. More a question of "why would you call it a
list" and in HTML terms, why use the extra element.  If we take this
further, we might as well make every section in a html document (heading and
paragraphs below it) a definition list and forget about headings and
paragraphs.  In fact, why not just make everything a div, span or object, so
it all becomes very generic.  (No, I'm not advocating that approach)
 

sometimes a list is just a list! You would call a list of one item a 
list if you would call the same group and structure of words a list if 
it contained more than one item. See, even the act of assuming it's an 
"item" gives credence to it being a list.

 

So many ways of grouping related items are correct, and without
further information on the differences we're just guessing. By 
all means though if one looks better or suits a personal 
preference then just use it, but it's not like we can draw any 
best practices from this.
   

Sure, it's personal preference, just like using tables nested n levels deep,
often replacing a single paragraph with a complex table (no, I don't
advocate that either).  I'm sure we've all seen examples of this (ab)use of
tables.  Are definition lists in danger of replacing tables for layout?
 

well, possibly they are - see Terry's earlier post. But even if they are, it in no way means that *in every situation* it's personal preference as to what is semantically best. That's what's called a "slippery slope" argument - just because you can find some examples where things aren't clear-cut, doesn't mean every case isn't clear cut. Again, sometimes a list is a list and a list is the right thing.
 

Regards
Mike Brown

SIGNIFY LTD :: the logic behind


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Bert Doorn]

G'day again

Peter

> Yes absolutely. If there is one person in a room and you 
> are asked to list the names of the people in the room then 
> the list will have one name.

Just to clarify my point.  I did not mean to ask whether it is "possible" to
call a list of one item a list. More a question of "why would you call it a
list" and in HTML terms, why use the extra element.  If we take this
further, we might as well make every section in a html document (heading and
paragraphs below it) a definition list and forget about headings and
paragraphs.  In fact, why not just make everything a div, span or object, so
it all becomes very generic.  (No, I'm not advocating that approach)

> So many ways of grouping related items are correct, and without
> further information on the differences we're just guessing. By 
> all means though if one looks better or suits a personal 
> preference then just use it, but it's not like we can draw any 
> best practices from this.

Sure, it's personal preference, just like using tables nested n levels deep,
often replacing a single paragraph with a complex table (no, I don't
advocate that either).  I'm sure we've all seen examples of this (ab)use of
tables.  Are definition lists in danger of replacing tables for layout?

Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Matthew]

Bert Doorn wrote:
To my thinking, if there's a collection (list) of articles, each with a
"caption" or "title" and a summary paragraph, using a (definition) list
makes sense, as it allows you to group "related" items (a bunch of news
items).
Well visually they're the same. So we are just talking about tags. What 
you say as "makes sense" is not expressed in the W3C standards, and the 
W3C haven't (to my knowledge) corrected anyone.

Which is not to say that you're wrong, but that it's ambiguous, so 
there's no reasoned choice to be made here.

The XHTML 1.0 spec allows paragraphs after headings without a container 
element, with an implied association, just like html 1.0.
A list is allows paragraphs and headings within it,
just like div tags, and tables.

So many ways of grouping related items are correct, and without further 
information on the differences we're just guessing. By all means though 
if one looks better or suits a personal preference then just use it, but 
it's not like we can draw any best practices from this.

.Matthew Crucikshank
http://holloway.co.nz/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Peter Firminger]

Hi,

> Is a list with one item really a list?

Yes absolutely. If there is one person in a room and you are asked to list
the names of the people in the room then the list will have one name.

P


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Bert Doorn]

G'day

> So I should simply use the "traditional"
> blah
> blah
> mark-up for my purposes?

To my thinking, if there's a collection (list) of articles, each with a
"caption" or "title" and a summary paragraph, using a (definition) list
makes sense, as it allows you to group "related" items (a bunch of news
items).  

If there's only ever going to be one news item (e.g. you just want to show
the latest news), I'd stick with the traditional heading and paragraph(s).
Is a list with one item really a list?  

Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
www.betterwebdesign.com.au
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Chris Kennon]

Hi,
So I should simply use the "traditional"
blah
blah
mark-up for my purposes?
On Monday, November 29, 2004, at 03:03 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
yes, it is appropriate for a list of articles (but again, not the 
article itself)... I think we're in agreement on that.

Terrence Wood.
On 2004-11-30 11:34 AM, Roger Johansson wrote:
On 29 nov 2004, at 22.58, Terrence Wood wrote:
While we can argue that the date, author and article name may well 
be a list of meta-data for a news article the content is not... the 
article is the data. I think the concept of a news article is a well 
established one that doesn't need to be abstracted to such degree in 
markup. It's unneccessarily pedantic IMHO.
For the full article, I agree. But what about a sidebar that shows 
excerpts from several news articles, along with their title, date, 
and a link to the full article? Wouldn't that be an appropriate use 
of a definition list?
/Roger
--
http://www.456bereastreet.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
--
"You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have 
nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." 
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

___
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Terrence Wood]

yes, it is appropriate for a list of articles (but again, not the 
article itself)... I think we're in agreement on that.

Terrence Wood.
On 2004-11-30 11:34 AM, Roger Johansson wrote:
On 29 nov 2004, at 22.58, Terrence Wood wrote:
While we can argue that the date, author and article name may well be 
a list of meta-data for a news article the content is not... the 
article is the data. I think the concept of a news article is a well 
established one that doesn't need to be abstracted to such degree in 
markup. It's unneccessarily pedantic IMHO.

For the full article, I agree. But what about a sidebar that shows 
excerpts from several news articles, along with their title, date, and a 
link to the full article? Wouldn't that be an appropriate use of a 
definition list?

/Roger
--
http://www.456bereastreet.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
--
"You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have 
nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." 
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Mordechai Peller wrote:
That part which both of you missed (or possibly just ignored) was the 
class assignment. By giving the date  a class you can easily style 
it.
Sorry, it looked so obvious to me that I didn't think it warranted a 
separate mention (also, by this point, I had lost track of the original 
question, as often happens with these long threads *blush* )
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Mordechai Peller]

Chris Kennon wrote:
Should I use in-line xml and change the dtd? Or is this fast becoming 
an RSS issue? 
OK, RSS is also a standard, so it's still on topic.
Now let's say that you use XSLT to transform it into XHTML: What mark-up 
should you use? This question basically brings us back to where this 
thread started.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Matthew]

Terrence Wood wrote:
I do feel slightly unsettled using  as a catch-all for anything 
vaguely resembling a key value pair, but can't really articulate that 
in an intelligent manner it just feels wrong somehow.
My thoughts exactly. Here's the way I'm starting to think about it though:
I think there's a structural difference between a series of 
headings+paragraphs and a definition list of headings+paragraphs.

Both methods can look the same, and as both contain headings and 
paragraphs they can be the same for disabled users, so this is a only 
question of the intended use of the tags.

Intended use of  is decided in 1) the spec and 2) W3C 
public reaction over the years [in that we could assume that as the W3C 
haven't spoken up about headings in definitions lists as being proper... 
and not corrected their own software such as Amaya or Tidy to generate 
code this way, that we've had it right all along].

The spec < http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html > says 
defintion lists are "generally" for term/definition pairs, and the 
example code marks up what are clearly headings using  tags. 
Ugh. The spec has an example of multiple s directly following each 
other (because the thing they're defining has multiple terms) and then 
multiple definitions.
It's also said in the spec that "another application of DL is for 
marking up dialogues, with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD 
containing his or her words.". Here's there's no definition or 
'key/value', it's just a label and a some associated content.

As far as the W3C public reaction goes I don't think the W3C has ever 
asked people to do headings using . This isn't to say that it's 
inappropriate, but that it's unnecessary.

In summary,
It seems to me that  is unnecessary and a poor substitute 
for XHTML 2.0's  tag. In the meantime I'd probably use  and nest it deeply.

Anyway, that's my thought process.

.Matthew Cruickshank
http://holloway.co.nz/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Mordechai Peller]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Another interpretation (that I assumed when I first read M's post) is 
that
it seems contrary to semantics to have date emphasised. If the em is only
used for visual styling, it should be replaced by pure styling markup 
(such
as adding a class instead).
If something truly is an emphasis, it's not redundant to mark it up as 
such
even if it emcompasses the entirety of the parent element's content.
While both Lea and Patrick missed part of that I was saying, Patrick is 
essentially correct about what he did comment on. In this regard, yes, 
emphasizing a stand alone date seems meaningless. The same effect should 
be done through

That part which both of you missed (or possibly just ignored) was the 
class assignment. By giving the date  a class you can easily style 
it. For example: .date {font-style:italics; stress:60;} (I'm guessing 
about the aural property. I'm not sure if that's the correct property, 
or if the value is correct, but I think so. 
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/aural.html#propdef-stress)

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Roger Johansson]

On 29 nov 2004, at 22.58, Terrence Wood wrote:
While we can argue that the date, author and article name may well be 
a list of meta-data for a news article the content is not... the 
article is the data. I think the concept of a news article is a well 
established one that doesn't need to be abstracted to such degree in 
markup. It's unneccessarily pedantic IMHO.
For the full article, I agree. But what about a sidebar that shows 
excerpts from several news articles, along with their title, date, and 
a link to the full article? Wouldn't that be an appropriate use of a 
definition list?

/Roger
--
http://www.456bereastreet.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Chris Kennon]

Well,
Should I use in-line xml and change the dtd? Or is this fast becoming 
an RSS issue?

example:

 lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetu
Sam I Am
76Juvember2207

lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetu
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetu
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetu
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetu


On Monday, November 29, 2004, at 01:58 PM, Terrence Wood wrote:
I think  to add emphasis is incorrect. The 
 is in fact the redundant element in the given example.

We may as well do .
I do feel slightly unsettled using  as a catch-all for anything 
vaguely resembling a key value pair, but can't really articulate that 
in an intelligent manner it just feels wrong somehow.

While we can argue that the date, author and article name may well be 
a list of meta-data for a news article the content is not... the 
article is the data. I think the concept of a news article is a well 
established one that doesn't need to be abstracted to such degree in 
markup. It's unneccessarily pedantic IMHO.

Terrence Wood.
On 2004-11-30 10:15 AM, Lea de Groot wrote:
While
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear to have meaning
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear a little redundant.
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
is better.
Lea
--
"You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have 
nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." 
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

___
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Terrence Wood]

I think  to add emphasis is incorrect. The  
is in fact the redundant element in the given example.

We may as well do .
I do feel slightly unsettled using  as a catch-all for anything 
vaguely resembling a key value pair, but can't really articulate that in 
an intelligent manner it just feels wrong somehow.

While we can argue that the date, author and article name may well be a 
list of meta-data for a news article the content is not... the article 
is the data. I think the concept of a news article is a well established 
one that doesn't need to be abstracted to such degree in markup. It's 
unneccessarily pedantic IMHO.

Terrence Wood.
On 2004-11-30 10:15 AM, Lea de Groot wrote:
While
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear to have meaning
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear a little redundant.
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
is better.
Lea
--
"You know you've achieved perfection in design, not when you have 
nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away." 
-Antoine de Saint-Exupery
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Chris Kennon]

Two Times, one for you.
D*** you guys are good. When I grow up, I'm 38, I want to be just like 
you ;) Thanks, I understand. So the following is semantic nirvana?


	Article Title
	28November2004
	
		ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo 
consequat.
		ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo 
consequat.
	


C
On Monday, November 29, 2004, at 01:30 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Lea de Groot wrote:
Mordechai (if I can presume to speak for him!) is suggesting that 
putting an em tag entirely around a block level element (the dd) is 
not very semantic and a class on the containing dd is more so.
I'm inclined to agree.
While
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear to have meaning
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear a little redundant.
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
is better.
Another interpretation (that I assumed when I first read M's post) is 
that
it seems contrary to semantics to have date emphasised. If the em is 
only
used for visual styling, it should be replaced by pure styling markup 
(such
as adding a class instead).
If something truly is an emphasis, it's not redundant to mark it up as 
such
even if it emcompasses the entirety of the parent element's content.

--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

___
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Chris Kennon]

Hi
D*** you guys are good. When I grow up, I'm 38, I want to be just like 
you ;) Thanks, I understand.


On Monday, November 29, 2004, at 01:15 PM, Lea de Groot wrote:
Peter Firminger wrote:
	date
Mordechai Peller said:
Which is why I think that
date
would be better.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:49:53 -0800, Chris Kennon wrote:
As I started this thread I'm unsure how or why this is necessary,
would you elaborate?
Mordechai (if I can presume to speak for him!) is suggesting that
putting an em tag entirely around a block level element (the dd) is not
very semantic and a class on the containing dd is more so.
I'm inclined to agree.
While
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear to have meaning
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear a little redundant.
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
is better.
Lea
--
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet 

Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web
Design
Brisbane, Australia
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

___
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Lea de Groot wrote:
Mordechai (if I can presume to speak for him!) is suggesting that 
putting an em tag entirely around a block level element (the dd) is not 
very semantic and a class on the containing dd is more so.
I'm inclined to agree.
While
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear to have meaning
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear a little redundant.
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
is better.
Another interpretation (that I assumed when I first read M's post) is that
it seems contrary to semantics to have date emphasised. If the em is only
used for visual styling, it should be replaced by pure styling markup (such
as adding a class instead).
If something truly is an emphasis, it's not redundant to mark it up as such
even if it emcompasses the entirety of the parent element's content.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
_
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Lea de Groot]

Peter Firminger wrote:
>   date

Mordechai Peller said:
>> Which is why I think that
>> date
>> would be better.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:49:53 -0800, Chris Kennon wrote:
> As I started this thread I'm unsure how or why this is necessary, 
> would you elaborate?  

Mordechai (if I can presume to speak for him!) is suggesting that 
putting an em tag entirely around a block level element (the dd) is not 
very semantic and a class on the containing dd is more so.
I'm inclined to agree.
While
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear to have meaning
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
would appear a little redundant.
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur
is better.

Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet 
Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web 
Design
Brisbane, Australia
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Chris Kennon]

Best Wishes,

Which is why I think that
date
would be better.
Now, for example, you can have the date before the name while keeping 
it following the name in the source.


As I started this thread I'm unsure how or why this is necessary, would 
you elaborate?  Please reply off -list if this inciting some circular 
diatribe.

C
On Monday, November 29, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Mordechai Peller wrote:
Peter Firminger wrote:
Definition lists are entirely appropriate for any name/value set and 
are quite different to other (ordered and unordered) lists. A div is 
far less semantically appropriate IMHO.

I tend to agree, though sometimes it seems like lists are becoming the 
new tables.

Before a debate breaks out over that statement (though I suppose a 
discussion would be ok), I am well aware of the semantic value which 
lists add and that appearances can be deceiving.

News

	Article 1 name
	date
	
		article 1 content
		article 1 content
	


Then you will have granular control over the style of the decendants 
of the
#news DL element so you could style (for example) the p element to 
have no
top-margin and sit up under the date.

___
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Mordechai Peller]

Peter Firminger wrote:
Definition lists are entirely appropriate for any name/value set and are quite different to other (ordered and unordered) lists. A div is far less semantically appropriate IMHO.
 

I tend to agree, though sometimes it seems like lists are becoming the 
new tables.

Before a debate breaks out over that statement (though I suppose a 
discussion would be ok), I am well aware of the semantic value which 
lists add and that appearances can be deceiving.

News

Article 1 name
date

article 1 content
article 1 content


Then you will have granular control over the style of the decendants of the
#news DL element so you could style (for example) the p element to have no
top-margin and sit up under the date.
Which is why I think that
date
would be better.
Now, for example, you can have the date before the name while keeping it 
following the name in the source.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Chris Kennon]

Hi,
That was my thought, well not as articulate as your illustration, but 
along the same line.

Thanks,
C
On Sunday, November 28, 2004, at 01:10 AM, Peter Firminger wrote:
Hi,
Your second example is not valid;  element cannot be
contained in 
Quite correct but it can be within the .
in such way. the first one is ok, but why don't you consider
such scenario:
News

 News Name & Date
 News content here...

or something similar to that. Imho, lists are not really to
be used in such
situations.
Sorry Czeslaw, I disagree entirely with this. Definition lists are 
entirely
appropriate for any name/value set and are quite different to other 
(ordered
and unordered) lists. A div is far less semantically appropriate IMHO.

A better approach may be:
News

	Article 1 name
	date
	
		article 1 content
		article 1 content
	


Then you will have granular control over the style of the decendants 
of the
#news DL element so you could style (for example) the p element to 
have no
top-margin and sit up under the date.

P
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

___
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Peter Firminger]

Hi,

> Your second example is not valid;  element cannot be
> contained in 

Quite correct but it can be within the .

> in such way. the first one is ok, but why don't you consider
> such scenario:
>
> News
> 
>  News Name & Date
>  News content here...
> 
>
> or something similar to that. Imho, lists are not really to
> be used in such
> situations.

Sorry Czeslaw, I disagree entirely with this. Definition lists are entirely
appropriate for any name/value set and are quite different to other (ordered
and unordered) lists. A div is far less semantically appropriate IMHO.

A better approach may be:

News

Article 1 name
date

article 1 content
article 1 content



Then you will have granular control over the style of the decendants of the
#news DL element so you could style (for example) the p element to have no
top-margin and sit up under the date.

P


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Defining A Definition List

[Czeslaw Liebert]

Your second example is not valid;  element cannot be contained in  
in such way. the first one is ok, but why don't you consider such scenario:

News

News Name & Date
News content here...

or something similar to that. Imho, lists are not really to be used in such 
situations.

At 08:23 2004-11-28, you wrote:
Hi,
Would a  be appropriate for the following scenario?

News

Article name and date
article content

or
News

Article name 
date
article content

___
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

---
Czes³aw Liebert
http://www.78and85.com/
tel. (+48) (0) 504 425 892
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**