snipped: > > > >> > _Technicians_ are those individuals who perform ... > > > > > > >I see a problem with your markup though: > > > > > > >> > <DL class="inline-definition"> > > > >> > <DT>Technicians</DT> > > > >> > <DD>are those individuals who perform...</DD> > > > >> > </DL> > > > > > > >I don't think there is room for "are those" in there. > > > >Imho it should be: > > > > > > ><DT>Technicians</DT> > > > ><DD>Individuals who perform...</DD> > > > > I understand what you want to use, I'm just saying that I'm not sure about > > the semantics. > > DD stands for Definition Description so I don't think these descriptions > > should start with "are those". I think it should be a > "standalone" sentence. > > You are creating a bridge between DTs and DDs that should not exist (imho). > > Or, to put it another way, what the OP really wants is not a <DL>.
Can you find any support for this assertion in the spec? http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/lists.html#h-10.3 I'm seeing neither normative nor informative specifications for the linguistic grammar of a description. The HTML spec says nothing about standalone sentences or fragments in this context, probably because that would be outside its purview. If you check I think you'll find that most dictionary definitions are not complete sentences, e.g. <http://google.com/search?q=define%3Atechnician>. The OP's semantic content is clearly that of a definition list: terms and descriptions. What constructive goal do we achieve by attempting to constrain the grammar (in any given human language) of document content? Curiously, Paul __________________________ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/