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: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:21:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA3FDA7.3060902@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Stephen Stewart On 09-09-04 19.01:

> On 3 Sep 2009, at 02:50, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>>> Jonas Sicking On 09-09-03 01.46:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Lars Gunther wrote:
>>>>> 2009-09-02 22:57, Lars Gunther:


>>>> 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.


>>> 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).


The 'complex to style' argument is understandable. But if dialogs 
are complicated to mark up (joins/leaves etc), then why go for 
even simpler formats, such as <li> or <p>?

Looking once more at IRC logs, the <dialog> element, as defined,
doesn't permit /events/ to be mixed into the dialogs. Perhaps
that's a thing that needs to change. After all, dialogs are made 
up of more than speech - joining/leaving is part of the dialog act.

The DIALOG element allow the <time> element inside <dt>. That 
should be of help when marking up IRC logs.

If we look at a dialog as consisting of acts - such as join, 
leave, speech/comment, then it should be possible to fit join and 
leave into DIALOG as well.

For the <DL> element (but not the DIALOG element), you may have 
two <dt> elements after one another. I could imagine a join or a 
leave going into a <dt> - without any associated <dd>. (After all, 
it is thinkable that someone comments when he joins or leaves - 
and then the comment would have to go into <dd>.)

So, I think that <dl> should be made much more similar (by 
allowing a <dt> to follow another <dt>, and that it should be said 
that <dt> may contain additional info. For instance, if someone 
are ironic:

<dialog>
  <dt><time>14:22</time> Leif (ironically)</dt><dd>I see.</dd>
  <dt><time>14:23</time> Leif leaves the chat.</dt>
  <dt><time>14:24</time> Stephen </dt><dd>Finally ...</dd>
</dialog>

So, I wonder if one should file a bug report asking for DIALOG to 
be expanded this way ... And if more examples should be given, for 
example for IRC mark up.

The advantage of having something like a dialog element is to 
identify speech. If you are advocating use of <li> or <p>, then 
speech - as well as join/leave - must be marked up differently.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 6 September 2009 18:22:10 UTC

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