This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
http://www.w3.org/mid/B6CB855C5769484F862F4FB2CCFA50F402D545A7@VHAISHMSGJ2.vha.med.va.gov DL/DT/DD The definitions of these elements seem too vague and it appears to be implied that they are really for use in placement of certain kinds of text lines in relation to each other. On their own, without the dfn element, they are no longer explicitly meant to be used for "definitions" as such. Since these elements were being used for other purposes anyway, that seems understandable, however, aside from the admonition that they are not for use for dialog, no strong case is made for why they should be used as demonstrated, especially where other semantic or stylistic elements could serve. They appear to be meant to show relationship within a group, but it also appears that that relationship can be entirely arbitrary. [split out from bug 13590]
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I don't understand. Could you elaborate? These elements are just intended to be used for name-value pairs, like glossaries, lists of properties (e.g. technical specifications), and the like. They don't have to be used, if other elements are equally applicable then it's fine to use them instead.
Moved to HTML A11y TF component.
moved to github, assigned to Steve https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/202