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

[Ian Yang]

Okay, it seems that one of the ideas I mentioned in my original email needs
to be revamped.

I was saying that using general heading (<H1>) and paragraph (<p>) loses
the meaning of "definition term" and "definition description", but I didn't
realize that using <ol> loses the meaning of "definition list". That is,
the following code is, in fact, improper:

<!-- The following code is improper as it loses the meaning of "definition
list". -->
<ol>
    <li>
        <dt></dt>
        <dd></dd>
    </li>
    <li>
        <dt></dt>
        <dd></dd>
    </li>
    <li>
        <dt></dt>
        <dd></dd>
    </li>
</ol>


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

> I believe it was added to the specification for the kind of question
> that came up here. The "why do we have <ul> and <ol> but not <dl> and
> <odl>?" question.
>

That's a good idea. Thank you :)

********************

So based on the <ul> and the <ol>, we could have unordered definition list (
<udl>) and ordered definition list (<odl>).

When contents of a definition list are unordered, we could use:

<udl>
    <li>
        <dt></dt>
        <dd></dd>
    </li>
    <li>
         <dt></dt>
         <dd></dd>
     </li>
    <li>
         <dt></dt>
         <dd></dd>
     </li>
</udl>

And when contents of a definition list are ordered, we could use:

<odl>
    <li>
        <dt></dt>
        <dd></dd>
    </li>
    <li>
         <dt></dt>
         <dd></dd>
     </li>
    <li>
         <dt></dt>
         <dd></dd>
     </li>
</odl>


Sincerely,
Ian Yang