[whatwg] Heading, binding, LH (was:XSLT: HTML 5 --> HTML)
david at empyree.org
Tue Feb 13 05:07:39 PST 2007
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:18:59 +0900, Karl Dubost wrote:
> Le 9 févr. 2007 à 23:30, David Latapie a écrit :
>> dd (image)
>> dt (description)
> this is the opposite you should do.
> Let's say that you have an image which is *really* part of a
> definition list then
> dt (image) <- dt = Definition term as in the term to
> be defined.
> dd (description) <- dd = Definition description as in the
> explanation of the term.
> For example, in a school a list of animal images with their definitions
> image of a fox with the appropriate alt
> and then the fox description.
Right. I'll try to find an easy way to transform my SQL dump -- ouch.
>> Exception is when I have several picture of the same thing
>> dd (image 1)
>> dd (image 2)
>> dd (image 3)
>> dt Various steps in the making of coffee
> This doesn't exist. dt must be always before dd. You can't do that. A
> parser would not be able to associate the three dd to the dt. Plus
> the fact that it is an abuse of dl/dt/dd.
This is my belief there is a need for properly “binding” (is that the
right term) a picture and description. I'd go further by saying we need
the rethink the “master-slave”/“content-description” relationship in
image+description (not speaking of "alt" here)
list+introduction to the list (LH)
> Last but not least
>> (by the way, here, an ordering would be great, but only ol may have
>> semantic order - except if one consider that hN are semantically order
>> and using CSS counter make them visually ordered too)
> It /is/ ordered. Elements of an (XML) tree are ordered (it is one of
> the differences with graphs.)
I think I understand what you mean. So, what is the point of <ol> with
respect to <ul>, then? Just presentational numbering? SGML legacy? Is
<ul> ordered -- thzt would be paradoxal)?
More information about the whatwg