Problem with descriptive lists in CSS

[Joseph Haig]

I am trying to use descriptive lists, <DL>, as shown in
<http://www.maths.man.a c.uk/~jhaig/tmp/test.html> with a style sheet
at <http://www.maths.man.a c.uk/~jhaig/tmp/default-2.css>. With
Mozilla and Opera they appear correctly, with a border round both the
<DT> and <DD> parts but in Internet Explorer the borders are messed
up. Can anyone please tell me where the mistake is?

As an aside, the <div id="main"> section should have the right border
20px from the right hand side of the window. How can I get this to
display properly?

Thanks.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

jh***@maths.man .ac.uk (Joseph Haig) wrote:

I am trying to use descriptive lists, <DL>,
The "D" in "DL" stands for "definition ", not description. If you say
<dl><dt>foo</dt><dd>bar</dd></dl>,
then you are saying, by HTML specs, that the meaning of the term "foo" is
defined by the expression "bar". That is, to decide whether something is
a "foo", one should consult the expression "bar".
With
Mozilla and Opera they appear correctly, with a border round both the
<DT> and <DD> parts but in Internet Explorer the borders are messed
up. Can anyone please tell me where the mistake is?

What you are asking about is a CSS issue, not an HTML matter. From the
HTML standpoint, the relevant answer is that you should use DL for
definition lists - though the HTML specifications themselves obscure this
simple state of affairs. Generally, DL elements are particularly tricky
in CSS perspective, so it is not fruitful to use DL just to achieve a
particular layout, violating the semantic considerations, and then try to
prevent browsers from using that layout.

For example, using a table would probably be more fruitful if it is just
a collection of "things" and associated "notes".

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Joseph Haig]

Thank you for the reply.

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

jh***@maths.man .ac.uk (Joseph Haig) wrote:

I am trying to use descriptive lists, <DL>,
The "D" in "DL" stands for "definition ", not description. If you say
<dl><dt>foo</dt><dd>bar</dd></dl>,
then you are saying, by HTML specs, that the meaning of the term "foo" is
defined by the expression "bar". That is, to decide whether something is
a "foo", one should consult the expression "bar".

Specifically, I am using this for data taken from a database. <dt> contains
the field name and <dd> contains the information in that field. Not
strictly 'definitions' but I still think it is suitable. I will, however,
take your advise and see if I can do it some other way.

With
Mozilla and Opera they appear correctly, with a border round both the
<DT> and <DD> parts but in Internet Explorer the borders are messed
up. Can anyone please tell me where the mistake is?

What you are asking about is a CSS issue, not an HTML matter.

Could you please suggest a CSS newsgroup? I have not been able to find one
and this group seemed to be the most suitable for my question.

[Lachlan Hunt]

Joseph Haig wrote:

Specifically, I am using this for data taken from a database. <dt> contains
the field name and <dd> contains the information in that field.
That fits the structure of a definition list just fine, no need to
try and find a different method.
Could you please suggest a CSS newsgroup?

Try comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.stylesheets

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@la chy.id.au.updat e.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.s canners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Lachlan Hunt <la**********@l achy.id.au.upda te.virus.scanne rs> wrote:

Joseph Haig wrote:

Specifically, I am using this for data taken from a database. <dt>
contains the field name and <dd> contains the information in that
field.

That fits the structure of a definition list just fine,

Not at all. The _meaning_ of a field name is quite different from the
different values in the field in different data sets. For example, if the
name is "year", then the definition might be 'the year in which the book
was published', if the database is bibliographic. The value of the field
could be "1952" or "2004" or something else; none of the values _defines_
what the field name _means_ - rather, any useful interpretation of the
data requires some external information about that meaning.

A collection of field name, field value pairs is - both theoretically and
pragmatically - best described as a table, perhaps so that the field name
is a <th> element and the field value is a <td> element, though one might
conceivably use <td> for both of them as well.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Lachlan Hunt]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Lachlan Hunt <la**********@l achy.id.au.upda te.virus.scanne rs> wrote:

Joseph Haig wrote:

Specifically , I am using this for data taken from a database. <dt>
contains the field name and <dd> contains the information in that
field.
That fits the structure of a definition list just fine,

Not at all. ... For example, if the
name is "year", then the definition might be 'the year in which the book
was published', if the database is bibliographic.

Yes, that's one interpretation of a definition list.
The value of the field
could be "1952" or "2004" or something else; none of the values _defines_
what the field name _means_

True, but a definition list isn't strictly for defining the meaning
of a term like in a glossary or dictionary. In that example, the
definition list can be interpreted as defining the value for the property.

Lets take a look at the example taken from the HTML 4.01 spec:
# Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up
# dialogues, with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD
# containing his or her words.

So, a sample definition list could be used to markup content like this:
<dl>
<dt>Fred</dt>
<dd><q>Hello Barney</q></dd>
<dt>Barney</dt>
<dd><q>Hi Fred</q></dd>
</dl>

So, technically, that doesn't fit your strict definition for a
defintion list either, since "Fred" doesn't mean "Hello Barney", it is
just the what Fred said; but it does fit what the specification says.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@la chy.id.au.updat e.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.s canners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!

[Harlan Messinger]

"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@l achy.id.au.upda te.virus.scanne rs> wrote in
message news:Hf******** ***********@new s-server.bigpond. net.au...

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Lachlan Hunt <la**********@l achy.id.au.upda te.virus.scanne rs> wrote:

Joseph Haig wrote:
Specifically , I am using this for data taken from a database. <dt>
contains the field name and <dd> contains the information in that
field.

That fits the structure of a definition list just fine,
Not at all. ... For example, if the
name is "year", then the definition might be 'the year in which the book
was published', if the database is bibliographic.

Yes, that's one interpretation of a definition list.

The value of the field
could be "1952" or "2004" or something else; none of the values _defines_ what the field name _means_

True, but a definition list isn't strictly for defining the meaning
of a term like in a glossary or dictionary. In that example, the
definition list can be interpreted as defining the value for the property.

I agree with this.

Lets take a look at the example taken from the HTML 4.01 spec:
# Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up
# dialogues, with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD
# containing his or her words.

I have some hesitation about this. It would be fine if a list consists of a
set of distinct characters, each matched with a set of his well-known
catch-phrases:

Fonzie
Aaaaaaayyyyyyyy .
Arnold from Different Strokes
Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?
Flip Wilson's Geraldine
The devil made me do it!
What you see is what you get! (Yes, this is where WYSIWYG comes
from.)
Whoooooo!!!
Chester Riley
What a revoltin' development this is!

But a script departs from this pattern in a couple of ways. First, it isn't
an association of *distinct* terms with their corresponding values, in the
way that a real definition list is. The same character appears on multiple
entries in the list. Second, it's limited to special cases, because the
general case of a script or dialog is not a uniform list of characters their
lines. In the general case, stage directions are interspersed, breaking up
the monolithic nature of the list. You could have a series DLs separated by
the stage directions, but that would be semantically dishonest, because the
set of lines that happens to be between two successive stage directions
might not be a single cohesive unit. I'm not sure what a *better* markup
would be in that case, but DL would be rather artificial for this purpose.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Lachlan Hunt <la**********@l achy.id.au.upda te.virus.scanne rs> wrote:

True, but a definition list isn't strictly for defining the
meaning of a term like in a glossary or dictionary.
Really?
In that example, the
definition list can be interpreted as defining the value for the
property.
But that's completely different; a <dl> element contains <dt> and <dd>
elements, and <dt> stands for definition term, and each <dd> supplies a
definition for some of the term. It's not about defining values of fields
but about defining meanings of terms.
Lets take a look at the example taken from the HTML 4.01 spec:
# Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up
# dialogues,
Which is just nonsense. A dialogue is not a definition list in _any_
sense. We have two options:
- We think that the W3C has no meaningful definition for what <dl>
means. Hence we should not use it all. (It does not really serve
in a useful way as a presentational trick, since CSS can do
such jobs much better.)
- We take the normative part, the definition, seriously - more seriously
than the specification itself - and ignore examples that do not fit
into that meaning.
<dt>Fred</dt>

Remember that <dt> comes from "definition term". Is "Fred" really a term
being defined?

If <dl> is not a list of definitions for terms, then what _is_ it?
Anything that someone wants to use to achieve a particular layout?
(Rather poorly, since the default rendering is not very good and the odds
of styling it are worse than the odds of styling e.g. a table.)
It's nonsensical to define an element in one particular way and then
start telling how it "can be used" for completely different meanings as
well.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Andy Dingley]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message news:<Xn******* *************** *******@193.229 .0.31>...

- We think that the W3C has no meaningful definition for what <dl>
means. Hence we should not use it all.
This is a rather "dog in the manger" attitude. I could support it more
easily if HTML had semantics worth talking about. We all know the
"HTML = content, CSS = presentation" argument, but the sad fact is
that HTML just doesn't have the inherent detail to support this
(without bolting <span class="..." id="..." > everywhere)

Who cares what the default semantics of <dl> are ? They're no clearer
or less clear than <h2> or <address> (<address> is surely the most
confused, yet useful)
(It does not really serve
in a useful way as a presentational trick, since CSS can do
such jobs much better.)

I use <dl> a lot, and I use it whenever I need a list structure where
there's a substantial "two part" nature to each list element. I do the
rest with CSS, and if I wanted a numbered list I might even do that
with CSS. Marking-up dialogue (as the W3C suggest) works well with
<dl> and has a reasonable fall-back in the "lost CSS" case. Doing it
with <li> would involve rather too many <span>s and changing display
properties for my taste.

[Brian]

Andy Dingley wrote:

Who cares what the default semantics of <dl> are ? They're no clearer
or less clear than <h2> or <address> (<address> is surely the most
confused, yet useful)
I'd say <h2> is pretty clear: a second level heading, a sub-heading.
<address> is oddly named, but the semantics seem clear enough. "Who's
responsible for this page?"
I use <dl> a lot, and I use it whenever I need a list structure where
there's a substantial "two part" nature to each list element.
As do I. <dl> is most valuable for me as a way to structure groups,
where each group does not have the same number of items, e.g.,

menu item, price, description, (optional) additional combo price

A table could be used, with empty fields, but that's not the best in
terms of a data structure.
Marking-up dialogue (as the W3C suggest) works well with
<dl> and has a reasonable fall-back in the "lost CSS" case. Doing it
with <li> would involve rather too many <span>s and changing display
properties for my taste.

I agree, though using <dl> for these purposed -- or for mine -- is
dubious. In the end, I've unilatererally changed <dl> from defintion
list to general 2+ array list. Frankly, I don't know why the
recommendations have general use stuff like <p> and <table> on the one
hand, and rediculously specific-use markup like <dl>, <var>, and
<samp> on the other.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/