Hi Ben, There are two points of view about definition lists - one is a rigid definition of definition lists (pardon the pun) and the other is more open. The second point of view is actually supported by the W3C spec. This has been discussed/argued about numerous times on the list. Rather than bring it all up again, it might be easier to check our this article explaining both points of view - and some options: http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/definition/
By "spirit of the Standards" do you mean focussing on semantically correct markup as well as valid markup? If so, I agree completely. However, semantically correct markup is an inexact science. There is often a good argument for using more than one HTML elements for any given purpose. Some people argue heatedly about a particular option but the reality is that there may be no definitively correct option, there may be a range of acceptable options - and each option may work better in different circumstances. The main aim is to avoid using obviously incorrect html elements to do the job. For example, marking up a <div> to look like a heading or using blockquotes/definition lists simply to indenting content. These will give your content incorrect meaning in many devices. Some good ways to check if your code has meaning for more than just the modern browsers: 1. load up your page without style sheets 2. check your page in Lynx or some other text-based browser 3. listen to your page on a screen reader Russ > Given that DT's and DD's have a very specific intended use (defining > terms), I believe it a little unreasonable to use them for anything but > formatting definitions. > > There are other ways to format navigation elements that seem more inline > with the way these tags are intended to be used, so why use something > that is most definitely not intended to do so? ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
