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

Sean Hogan shogun70 at westnet.com.au
Thu Jul 19 18:39:12 PDT 2012

On 20/07/12 10:52 AM, Ian Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Alex Bishop<alexbishop at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 19/07/2012 08:04, Ian Yang wrote:
>>> Since the *optional *use of<li>  in<dl>  could solve many problems, may we
>>> have<li>  being valid in<dl>?
>> Probably not, as it has similar drawbacks as the proposed<di>  element:
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#HTML_should_group_.3Cdt.3Es_and_.3Cdd.3Es_together_in_.3Cdi.3Es.21
> Thanks. However, the drawbacks mentioned in that document is about the
> nonexistent<di>, not the existent<li>.

Yes, that whole section is misleading, as has been discussed before:

- The benefit of <di> or <li> is not just styling
- There's no indication that a CSS solution will be developed anyway
- As you say, none of those reasons apply to <li>

> <li>  in<dl>  is rendered without problems in IE6+, FF3.6+, Chrome, and
> Safari. Only in Opera that definition term and the bullet aren't at the
> same line.
> Furthermore, browsers need to be compliant with the standards, not the
> standers need to be compliant with browsers. If the latter were true, we
> wouldn't have had so many new HTML5 elements to use.

Well, the browser vendors need to agree somewhat before the standard 
becomes a standard.
And at the moment there's lots of cool new stuff to implement, as well 
as many browser discrepancies and *real* bugs to fix, so I think it will 
be some time before anyone looks at this issue properly.


More information about the whatwg mailing list