Peter Firminger wrote: > <dd><em>date</em></dd>
Mordechai Peller said: >> Which is why I think that >> <dd class="date">date</dd> >> 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 <div>lorem ipsum dolor <em>sit amet</em> consectetur</div> would appear to have meaning <div><em>lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur</em></div> would appear a little redundant. <div class="something">lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur</div> is better. Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet <http://elysiansystems.com/> 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 ******************************************************
