|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 02/03/06 22:28
chromatic_aberration <chromatic.aberration@direkte.org> wrote:
> You're being a bit too literal in
> your understanding of the DL element...
I'm referring to its definition, which is pretty definite.
> When you look at the W3C spec, it states a.o.:
>
> "Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up
> dialogues, with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing
> his or her words."
So what? They give a definition and then start to babble nonsense that
is quite comparable to saying, after a definition of what BLOCKQUOTE
_means_, that another application of BLOCKQUOTE is for indenting text.
When a specification is self-contradictory, you have to make a choice.
The sensible approach is that the normative definition trumps any
examples.
This has actually been discussed quite a many times. Nobody can prevent
you from using DL (or BLOCKQUOTE) to achieve a particular visual
layout, and there are probably no serious consequences, since such
abuse is so common that DL (and BLOCKQUOTE too, in fact) is almost
useless as semantic markup. Yet, it's still much better to use logical
and clean markup and use CSS for styling.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|