On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Keryx Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm coming around to the opinion that <dl>, <ul>, and <ol> (and the new list > elements in html5) should allow a larger set of elements as their direct > children. I've been playing around with <hn> within <ul> or <ol> (with the > intended semantics being that it's a header *for the list*), as it provides > a nice tight binding that makes it easier to style and move around with CSS. > I could also use <section> or <div>, of course, but my solution communicates > exactly the semantics I want and nothing else. > I also have proposed list headers in the past, but that got ignored. > Being able to wrap <li> (and the equivalents of <dt> and <dd>, etc) in <ins> > or <del> seems appropriate and useful, at least to authors that actually use > <ins> and <del>. Makes sense. > If we *did* do so, we need to figure out what other elements should be > allowed within a list. I like the idea of a list header, maybe <lh> > > ~TJ >
