- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:20:10 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7657
Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #2 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2009-09-21 13:20:10 ---
"I don't buy that these elements are that confusing. In all three cases, these
elements mean roughly the same thing — <dt> is the label for something else,
and <dd> is the something else."
I find it amazing that the same person who argues so strenuously for the needs
of both section and article, is the same person who just wrote that. If it is
so important to have both a section and an article, because they semantically
mean different things (and have different behaviors), than how much more so is
it an error to use dt/dd in such a chaotic and messy manner.
The use of dt/dd were added only recently, before that other HTML elements were
're-used', and to the same ill effect.
You can't say one is label for the other, when you allow only dt in some cases,
only dd in other cases, and an add mix of both in yet other cases.
Worse, when authors see how dt/dd are used in Figure, they will parrot such use
in Details, which will then cause confusion, and perhaps odd results. The same
with dl -- such redefinition is badly done, a grasping at straws, rather than a
thoughtful response.
However, since the HTML5 author is indifferent to web page authors, developers,
and designers, new evidence has surfaced that this approach is not backwards
compatible with browses, either [1].
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0780.html
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 13:20:20 UTC