Hi Micky,
I'm not sure about the whole Unordered List approach ....
BUT! You do raise a point and it made me think of my old Structuralism
english lit classes at uni...
They reckoned that you could only have multiple signifiers (descriptors for
a concept) but only one signified (the concept itself) ...
A rough example might be: "dog", "chien", "bow wow", image of a dog, etc...
which are all signifiers for the one signified - the actual dog itself.
Effectively, in a coding sense, this would mean only one <dt> and many <dd>s
<dt>Dog</dt>
<dd><q lang="en">Dog</q></dd>
<dd><q lang="fr">Chien</q></dd>
<dd><object src="bowWow.mp3" /></dd>
<dd><img src="dog.jpg width="100" height="100" alt="Image of my puppy"
/></dd>
This would be how a Sturcturalist would put it together and these guys
invented semantics.
In terms of the book or product image, I'd lean towards the above example.
The image itself isn't a signified but rather a signifier so it would be a
<dd>.
Similarly the ISBN is not a representation of the conept itself but rather a
way of describing it, so it too would go in a <dd>.
...
Did I just over-geek the whole scenario?
R :o)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Micky Mourelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Definition List for Products/Items with Image
Richard (on having the img on a separate dd):
There is no universal solution to it. It depends on content. So, if
you are tagging a book, with its synopsis and cover:
<dl>
<dt>Book Title</dt>
<dd><img></dd>
<dd>Description</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dt>Book Title</dt>
<dt>ISBN</dt>
<dd>Description</dd>
<dd><img></dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dt>Book Title</dt>
<dd>
<img>
<p>Description</p>
<p>Description</p>
</dd>
</dl>
To me all are good semantic options (remember this is just an example
for a books).
The cover on a single dd? I'm not sure, after all the you can't
describe a book by the cover (ha, ha, I'm so funny) To me the cover
would be part of the description along with the synopsis. Or not, but
I do not see it neccessary to have every descriptive item in its own
dd. And look at the example I provided with the ISBN on another DT;
after all you are describing an item equally identifiable by both ISBN
and Title, but you could say: "no, the ISBN is not that important in
this specific page I'm coding" then do not put it inside a dt,
semantics are not context-independent. The author of the book probably
deserves its own dd, but then again, the author, synopsis, publisher
are just part of what describes a book.
What do you think?
I'm having now a similar problem on a magazine:
______
| | ARTICLE TITLE (variable length)
| photo | variable length short desc
|_____ |
______
| | ARTICLE TITLE (variable length)
| photo | variable length short desc
|_____ |
When you have this scenario. with more than 1 set of article, desc,
img, css get tricky if the sets are on the same dl. So I'm considering
this:
(BTW Why can't we wrap dt/dd with divs? Divs have no semantics, they
should be allowed everywhere; I gues that's why they've come up with
<di> in XHTML 2.0)
<ul>
<li>
<dfn>ARTICLE TITLE (variable length)</dfn>
<img>
<p>variable length short desc</p>
<p>variable length short desc</p>
</li>
<li>
<dfn>ARTICLE TITLE (variable length)</dfn>
<img>
<p>variable length short desc</p>
</li>
</ul>
Is it pushing too far?
Oh! I hate applying semantics on non semantic languages.
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
