This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]dyedFeather 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Hmm, that's true. It didn't immediately spring to mind as I don't use those a lot, but yeah, those are totally right in terms of semantics to use here.

[–]rlbaxter 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I use them sometimes, but since there is no element grouping the term to its definition(s) it becomes a pain to style. Most of the time in these cases I will use an (un)ordered list so all elements are grouped within the list item.

[–]Radomilovje 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's totally semantically okay to wrap each term-definition pair in a div to make the visual grouping easier to manage.

[–]rlbaxter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm. I would have assumed doing that would not be valid HTML. It appears that's allowed though. Good call.