[whatwg] Suggest making <dt> and <dd> valid in <ol>

[Ian Yang]

2012/7/14 Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl>

> I would recommend not over-thinking the matter. Otherwise soon you
> will start wrapping your <p>s in <ol>/<li>s too to ensure they stay in
> the correct order.
>

That wouldn't be the problem. General <p>s of an article never are list
contents, so we surely won't wrap them in <ol>/<li>s.


> Using <dl> for ordered groups is perfectly fine.
>
> (The specification points this out as well: "The order of the list of
> groups, and of the names and values within each group, may be
> significant.")
>

Thanks for the info about the spec saying in <dl> the order of the list of
groups *may* be significant. However, what it says means a <dl> itself is
unable to tell whether its contents are unordered or ordered, and we have
to judge that by ourselves.

Comparing to <ul> and <ol> which themselves are able to tell whether their
contents are unordered and ordered, the <dl> itself being unable to do that
is, imho, disappointing.


Sincerely,
Ian Yang