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

Re: Implementor feedback (dialog and datepickers)

From: Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:01:12 +0100
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4425AB6B-4A62-491D-B202-E90EE0FEFA3C@gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

On 3 Sep 2009, at 02:50, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Leif Halvard
> Silli<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>> 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].
>
>> [1] http://www.alistapart.com/articles/unwebbable/
>
> I couldn't actually see a microformat defined there? Mind pointing me
> more directly at what you are referring to?
>
>>> 2. Are dialogs really common enough to warrant their own element? If
>>
>>
>> Dialog is common - perhaps just not within _our_ ranks ... ;-)
>
> Dialog is common for sure. Dialog marked up in HTML pages I'm less
> sure. Though interviews might actually be fairly common in HTML pages.
>
>>> 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 would probably recommend <p>. But that's just a personal preference.

I'd go with <p> or <li>, but not <dt><dd>. Marking chat logs up in  
<dt><dd> is overly complex to style and is restrictive -- it requires  
more effort than necessary to mark up information about the  
conversation (such as participants joining and leaving).

> Has anyone checked with the people that was in the HTML WG at the time
> of HTML4 to see why they recommended <dl>?
>
> / Jonas
>

--
Stephen Stewart
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 17:01:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:07 UTC