I agree we have split enough hairs for a while. We are really getting down to personal opinion. Any further discussion is best done offlist.
Thanks Russ > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 10:56:37 -0000, P.H.Lauke wrote: >> 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 ? > > I think we are splitting hairs, so which ever way you really want to > mark it up should be fine. > But for the purist's argument... above you said 'definition lists' > (plural). This is the difference between the two examples; you've ended > up with multiple lists, where originally there was only one :) > > Lea ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
