I'm sorry, but I fail to see what semantic meaning the example tries to convey in the first place ?
A list of terms, which can have one or more descriptions ? And how, in that case, is the use of UL bad ? Sure, UL is generic, but it does get semantic meaning from its constituent list items, in this case definition lists. Or are we splitting hairs here ? Moreover...are we not getting too specific with hypothetical DLI elements and such ? I'm all for having very specific tags when it comes to *storing* data (in XML, then you can write your own super-specific, semantically charged tags DTD/Schema), but is it really a good idea to clutter XHTML (which still is primarily a way of marking up content for the web) to make it fit specific semantic requirements ? Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: Lea de Groot > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 March 2004 10:38 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [WSG] Definition list wish > > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:20:35 -0000, P.H.Lauke wrote: > > What's wrong with > > > > <ul> > > <li> > > <dl> > > <dt>Albatross</dt> > > <dd>A sea bird</dd> > > <dd>A tasty snack at the movies</dd> > > </dl> > > </li> > > <li> > > <dl> > > <dt>Swallow</dt> > > <dd>Coconut delivery system</dd> > > </dl> > > </li> > > </ul> > > Once again the two elements have been separated into two different > lists, removing semantic information. > Bad, bad thing ;) > > Lea > -- > Lea de Groot > Elysian Systems > ***************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > ***************************************************** > > ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
