W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Implementor feedback (dialog and datepickers)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:19:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4A9F19B2.6040109@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking On 09-09-03 01.46:

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Lars Gunther<gunther@keryx.se> wrote:
>> 2009-09-02 22:57, Lars Gunther skrev:
>>> Yes, CSS would be the means to implement the actual voice changes, but
>>> we still need semantics to hook into. Without a dedicated element for
>>> dialog
>> Continuing my sentence:
>>
>> what would the markup actually look like?
> 
> You could use:
> <section>
> <p class="says juliet">O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny
> thy father and refuse thy name; Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my
> love and I'll no longer be a Capulet.</p>
> <p class="says romeo aside">Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?</p>
> ...
> </section>
> 
> I certainly agree that <dialog> adds more explicit semantics. However
> I see two problems:
> 
> 1. The current <dialog> element adds support for only the most basic
> dialogs. As several have pointed out it's inadequate in many cases.
> Such as for irc conversations you'd want to mark up joins and leaves.


The WHATwg irc log only uses <ol>. That is a much simpler format 
than <dl>.

> For plays you'd want people doing something ("drinks the bottle of
> poison") etc, and possibly also scene and act changes.


There are microformats for "complicated dialog", see Joe Clark[1].

 
> 2. Are dialogs really common enough to warrant their own element? If


Dialog is common - perhaps just not within _our_ ranks ... ;-)

> we look at the microformat efforts, microformats have been created to
> mark up calendar events, peoples contact information, licenses,
> reviews, recipes and much more. However no one has taken the time to
> create a microformat for dialogs. Based on that it seems more urgent
> to add a <recipe> element than adding a <dialog> element.

Thus you go for using <dl> for dialog, as HTML 4 explicitly allows?

I think part of the story for DL is that has been difficult to 
style across browsers. For example <dl compact> only works 
reliably in IE ... While the same effect via CSS has only been 
possible in the other browsers ...

The problematic support, could be another argument contra 
splitting DL into yet another badly supported list type.

Here is an attempt to use DL/DIALOG to mark up a WHATWG IRC log:

<dl>
<dt id="l-57" _a="MikeSmith"><a href="#l-57">#</a> [06:37]
</dt><dd>&lt;MikeSmith&gt;</dd><dd> *they do <span> </span></dd>
<dt id="l-58"><a href="#l-58">#</a> [06:42]</dt><dd> * Joins: 
dglazkov (..[ip number removed] ..) <span> </span></dd>
<dt id="l-59" _a="jacobolus"><a href="#l-59">#</a> [06:43] 
</dt><dd>&lt;jacobolus&gt;</dd><dd> FF 2&amp;3, &amp; Safari 4 do, 
but Opera doesn't seem to <span> </span></dd>
</dl>

Note that I did not put the person inside <dt>, as <dialog> would 
haved required me to. This becomes a manually numbered ("time 
numbered") list,where the first DD gives the speaker name or 
join/leave name. and the second DD gives the actual speech/message 
form the person.
-- 
leif halvard silli






[1] http://www.alistapart.com/articles/unwebbable/
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 01:20:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT