Updated to remove <strong for the same reasons, it's usage in this context is not correct.

Joomla tracker item thingy: http://joomlacode.org/gf/project/joomla/tracker/?action=TrackerItemEdit&tracker_id=8103&tracker_item_id=29297

Let me know if there is anything additional I can provide. Thanks.

@elinw Any update on this? I have many others of a similar ilk as I have been writing my own content overrides for J3.0 to clean up the markup.

This is exactly the same issue as with the hr and dl changes you made; it's the wrong markup for the context. It's a real shame to see it ship like this.

That's a point i also didn't understand, why using dl ?

@sybrek Agreed. I created content overrides for J3.0 yesterday and I've removed all dl/dt, as I don't feel they are the correct markup to be using.

That said, they are not obviously and undeniably incorrect, as small, strong, i, etc. are.

I wouldn't say that using dl is totally wrong, i'm only wondering why we changed that.

There were some conflicts with other changes so the merge wasn't clean.

Agree it's a discussion about the dl but it is really appropriate when you have a term and a description (address 4444 Main Street) and you need the term for accessibility (so the screen reader can say what it is) but in this case i'm not happy with the way it is set up to be honest it was just a first pass at cleaning up and making it render correctly.

Can we please get comments into the issue tracker at joomlacode because that is where the decisions are made. We need to always have at least two good tests and time for Kyle to respond if he has concerns, though he looked at this and was fine with it.

I totally agree we want to get rid of the clearly wrong uses as quickly as we can. Please keep working on this, it is really useful.

Thanks @elinw

Actually, I believe that <footer is the correct element to use for article info, and I have already implemented that in my own overrides. There's already been quite some discussion around this, if you are interested: semantic-joomla@3f60f71

Actually, I'd prefer to keep comments, and discussion here for a number of reasons. It's far more transparent and encourages community participation instead of removing discussion from the public eye. In Joomlacode it isn't possible to comment against code, or even review it, let alone edit it. And there are no proper notifications?? WTF? It seems like a system designed to keep outsiders out. I don't believe decisions should be made in the darkness that is Joomlacode.

We have a wonderful tool here with Github, let's use it and keep the code, the discussion and the decisions in one place. It's easy and fast to test right here, there's plenty of other projects proving that.

I'm well aware that the official word is that Github does not fit the 'established process', it's my view that the established process is wrong. It has to be. If it makes it difficult to contribute, it's wrong.

This is covered, and expanded upon, with a newer PR: #1079

closing this as a dupe…