Todd,
> I have been experimenting. I think it
> looks better set to -1em
Looks are one thing, author's intent as to relationships is another.
A dl element contains a multiplicity of pairs of (dt,dd) elements:
dt defines a title for the entry
dd defines the data that goes with that title.
dt another title
dd another data
...
dt another title
dt another data
These are defined in the css so that dt is indented 2ems, and dd
indented 4 ems. Thus dd is indented 2 ems beneath dt, so they look like
dt
dd
dt
dd
The reader is encouraged to interpret indentation to mean that an
indented part elaborates the part it is under. Agreed?
Now lets consider content, and author's intent.
First, consider the /etc/passwd entry. The dd contains text like other
dd elements, followed in this case by a dl having a dt title of
"multiple reading of". If the latter is indented as you prefer (-1 em),
then I interpret "multiple reading of" to be an elaboration of "file and
database lookups...". However, I do not think that was the author's
intent.
If I go read the linked chapter, I strongly feel that "multiple reading"
is additional elaboration of /etc/passwd, and hence should be indented
the same as the text just above it. Indenting -2em accomplishes this.
The double indenting caused by -1em appears to convey the wrong intent
in each case I have examined of this type.
On the other hand, take the the entry "4xx responses". It has no text
inside the dd, just another dl list. What extra meaning is conveyed by
having this list double indented? I don't see any purpose at all. It
makes more sense to me to have it single indented to correspond with all
other titles. (again, -2m)
Just my opinion.
