The <dl> tag seems to cover a subset of a broad semantic space, but doesn’t easily extend beyond adding another <dd>.

I dunno, I guess I’m a caveman. If it looks right and works (including accessibility) then I figure I’m pursuing something that doesn’t matter a lot.

▲ callc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Shameless plug: you might be interested in https://calvinlc.com/p/2026/02/11/everything-is-a-div.html

I need to learn more about web accessibility, but if you completely ignore it (and other sane practices) HTML looks really simple.

I think the design of HTML is just too much. There’s so many tags that don’t do much. It’s like w3c decided that any common thing people use in websites needs a tag. The end result is more and more tags…

Can anyone convince me otherwise? It screams design red-flags to me.

PS: I love the web and think it’s the best platform and future platform we have at the moment. It’s just quirky and loves not breaking old websites!

▲ shermantanktop 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh that’s great. It’s an opinionated view that focused strictly on the behavior of the tags wrt layout and appearance.

I’ve noticed that discussions of semantic meaning of tags often contain the word “feel.” Nothing wrong with that, taste matters, but it does point to the non-functional goals that are being pursued when people disagree.

<ol> vs <ul> - they are both ordered, because markup is ordered. One gets decorated differently than the other by default. Is the difference semantic or typographical?

	▲	bulatb an hour ago \| parent [-]
		A <ul> is a list of things whose order makes no difference to its meaning. Rearranging a <ul> would change the presentation, not the information. Rearranging an <ol> would change both. `<ul> Players <li> Alice <li> Bob <li> Carol </ul> <ol> Leaderboard <li> Bob <li> Alice <li> Carol </ol>`