Definition Lists

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Hi,
I am wondering whether definition lists are appropriate on the page
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/francavilladisicilia.html
I am writing a list of rooms which the house consists of and the pieces of
furniture
which are contained in each room
(the list has to be completed yet)
I used <dt> to list the rooms and <dd> for the furniture

 

[David Håsäther]

Hi,
I am wondering whether definition lists are appropriate on the
page http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/francavilladisicilia.html

I would say no, because the defintion data doesn't define the term (and
I know that since Swedish is my native language).
Also, I think that your styling for the list is a little confusing.

I would probably mark them up as:
<ul>
<li>ett kök med matvrä med öppen spis, köksspis, kylskåp, bord,
grytor och andra kökskärl</li>
<li>ett sovrum med dubbelsäng, skåp, byrå samt nattduksbord</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

I would say no, because the defintion data doesn't define the term (and
I know that since Swedish is my native language).
Also, I think that your styling for the list is a little confusing.

I would probably mark them up as:
<ul>
<li>ett kök med matvrä med öppen spis, köksspis, kylskåp, bord,
grytor och andra kökskärl</li>
<li>ett sovrum med dubbelsäng, skåp, byrå samt nattduksbord</li>
<li>...</li>
</ul>

Of course you used <ul> because you think that this is no definition list. I
assumed that it was and I followed the example which you can read on the
following page
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html
to code the mark up. The text between <dd> and </dd> gives further elements
about how the room looks like because it gives information about the pieces
of furniture and the like.
Please compare:




<dl>
<dt>ett kök</dt>
<dd>med matvrä med öppen spis, köksspis, kylskåp, bord, grytor och andra
kökskärl,</dd>
<dt>ett sovrum</dt>
<dd>med dubbelsäng, skåp, byrå samt nattduksbord,</dd>
<dt>ett annat sovrum
<dd>med två enkelsängar, två skåp och nattduksbord,</dd>
<dt>ett vardagsrum</dt>
<dd>med möjlighet av upp till 8 sovplatser,</dd>
<dt>en tvättstuga</dt>
<dd> med tvättmaskin med förrådsrum samt</dd>
<dt>ett badrum</dt>
<dd>med dusch</dd>
</dl>

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Of course you used <ul> because you think that this is no definition list. I
assumed that it was and I followed the example which you can read on the
following page
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html
to code the mark up. The text between <dd> and </dd> gives further elements
about how the room looks like because it gives information about the pieces
of furniture and the like.
Please compare:


the examples on http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html

and the code which I used on the page
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/francavilladisicilia.html
for the list

<dl>
<dt>ett kök</dt>
<dd>med matvrä med öppen spis, köksspis, kylskåp, bord, grytor och andra
kökskärl,</dd>
<dt>ett sovrum</dt>
<dd>med dubbelsäng, skåp, byrå samt nattduksbord,</dd>

<dt>ett vardagsrum</dt>

<dd>med möjlighet av upp till 8 sovplatser,</dd>
<dt>en tvättstuga</dt>
<dd> med tvättmaskin med förrådsrum samt</dd>
<dt>ett badrum</dt>
<dd>med dusch</dd>
</dl>
Another way would be to write it as an ordered list.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Of course you used <ul> because you think that this is no definition
list.

It simply isn't a definition list. If you call it a definition list, what
will you do when you encounter a list of definitions of terms?

I assumed that it was and I followed the example which you can
read on the following page
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/lists.html

They define <dl> as a definition list, then use it in foolish ways and
say that it's OK. There are two logical ways to deal with this: take the
_definition_ seriously, and follow it, not the wrong examples or loose
statements; or regard <dl> as having no actual definition whatsoever (if
it "can be used" for anything you like, then it does not really _mean_
anything), so don't use it.

 

[Mitja]

Hi,
I am wondering whether definition lists are appropriate on the page
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/francavilladisicilia.html
I am writing a list of rooms which the house consists of and the pieces of
furniture
which are contained in each room
(the list has to be completed yet)
I used <dt> to list the rooms and <dd> for the furniture

It's all just a matter of taste, so do it as you wish.
I personally wouldn't use a definition list, since I don't think the list of
furniture really defines the room as a term. But then again, if we only used
DLs in this context (ie defining terms) they would be very rarely the thing
to do. In a way, the room as such _is_ defined by what it contains.
Anyway, IMO, there's not that much difference between DLs an ULs that you
should worry about it.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

It simply isn't a definition list. If you call it a definition list, what
will you do when you encounter a list of definitions of terms?


They define <dl> as a definition list, then use it in foolish ways and
say that it's OK. There are two logical ways to deal with this: take the
_definition_ seriously, and follow it, not the wrong examples or loose
statements; or regard <dl> as having no actual definition whatsoever (if
it "can be used" for anything you like, then it does not really _mean_
anything), so don't use it.

Who are they? Those belonging to www.w3.org who also publish the rules about
HTML?

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

It's all just a matter of taste, so do it as you wish.
I personally wouldn't use a definition list, since I don't think the list of
furniture really defines the room as a term.

Not a room but a sleeping room, for example. A sleeping room usually has
beds, for example and a kitchen usually does not have them although both are
rooms!

.. In a way, the room as such _is_ defined by what it contains.
That is what I mean (see above)

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

It simply isn't a definition list. If you call it a definition list, what
will you do when you encounter a list of definitions of terms?


They define <dl> as a definition list, then use it in foolish ways and
say that it's OK. There are two logical ways to deal with this: take the
_definition_ seriously, and follow it, not the wrong examples or loose
statements; or regard <dl> as having no actual definition whatsoever (if
it "can be used" for anything you like, then it does not really _mean_
anything), so don't use it.

You can also try to interpret what they actually mean looking at the
examples they use.

 

[Jim Roberts]

list
Not a room but a sleeping room, for example. A sleeping room usually has
beds, for example and a kitchen usually does not have them although both are
rooms!

. In a way, the room as such _is_ defined by what it contains.
That is what I mean (see above)

If you were going to use a definition list anyway, why bother posting your
original question? Personally I don't care whether you do or not. You
obviously are going to do it anyway. Why argue?

regards,
Jim

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

If you were going to use a definition list anyway, why bother posting your
original question? Personally I don't care whether you do or not. You
obviously are going to do it anyway. Why argue?

regards,
Jim

What I do also depends
on the answers I get. I cannot know before whether I get answer which
are convincing or not.
In this case, I assume that those belonging to www.w3.org also
publish the rules about
HTML. Therefore I also assume that they are consistent with the rules they
make and
I try to understand what they mean when they make an example.
I try to understand the rule by the examples and not first to interpret the
rule and later check it up whether the examples are consistent with the
rules
as they must know what they mean when they themselves have made the rules.

say that it's OK." sounds a bit strange to me.

Best regards
Luigi

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

What I do also depends
on the answers I get. I cannot know before whether I get answer which
are convincing or not.
In this case, I assume that those belonging to www.w3.org also
publish the rules about
HTML. Therefore I also assume that they are consistent with the rules they
make and
I try to understand what they mean when they make an example.
I try to understand the rule by the examples and not first to interpret the
rule and later check it up whether the examples are consistent with the
rules
as they must know what they mean when they themselves have made the rules.


Best regards
Luigi

So, what I mean is that a way to interpret HTML rules which is convincing
must be consistent with the examples which www.w3.org has already made.
If, on the other hand, www.w3.org should be of the opinion that the
examples, which they have made themselves, are not appropriate, they would
probably change them, wouldn´t they?

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Who are they? Those belonging to www.w3.org who also publish the
rules about HTML?

Exactly. Just because they violate their own rules doesn't mean you
should do the same.

 

[Jim Roberts]

Exactly. Just because they violate their own rules doesn't mean you
should do the same.

lol. Do what we say, not as we do...

Regards,
Jim

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Don´t you think that they should know better than others how the rules
should be interpreted?
I would rather suggest that the do not violate any rules: on the contrary,
they try to help users to understand what they mean by their rules!

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I would rather suggest that the do not violate any rules: on the
contrary, they try to help users to understand what they mean by
their rules!

So you mean that, for example, when a specific definition is followed by
an example that violates the definition, the definition should be read as
saying something quite different from what it actually says?

You cannot really harmonize the specifications. The W3C specifications
contradict each other, and official standards and protocols, and even
themselves internally. Not very often, but they do. As long as they don't
fix their contradictions, it's the reader's responsibility to make an
intelligent interpretation.

And surely something presented as a _definition_ trumps something
presented as a note, or merely as an example.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

So you mean that, for example, when a specific definition is followed by
an example that violates the definition, the definition should be read as
saying something quite different from what it actually says?

According to me the example is no violation of the definition. It only helps
to understand the definition better.
Your opinion is clearly different on this subject.

 

[Andrew Urquhart]

http://brightonfixedodds.net/sitemap.php.
I assume it should be re-written as an unordered list?

Looks like it to me as the only data relationship between the <dt> and
<dd>s is the tree hierarchy and an ordered list would do that more
cleanly.

This thread has me wondering now whether my own <dl> sitemap is as
semantic as I thought it was: http://www.andrewu.co.uk/about/sitemap/ ?

 

[Robert Frost-Bridges]

Exactly. Just because they violate their own rules doesn't mean you
should do the same.

I did though I'm afraid, I'm sure you recognise this:
http://brightonfixedodds.net/sitemap.php.
I assume it should be re-written as an unordered list?

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Looks like it to me as the only data relationship between the <dt> and
<dd>s is the tree hierarchy and an ordered list would do that more
cleanly.

This thread has me wondering now whether my own <dl> sitemap is as
semantic as I thought it was: http://www.andrewu.co.uk/about/sitemap/ ?

I am not sure whether I understand what you mean by "semantic" in this
context but I would say that the use of a definition list sounds appropriate
to me on the page which you mentioned and consistent with the example which
is made by w3.org
Best regards