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

<dialog> bugs (was: Implementor feedback (dialog and datepickers))

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:49:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA636B4.8030008@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
CC: Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
I have filed bug 7508 "<dialog> needs a way to add non-speech related 
information" [1], essentially suggesting that <dt> must be allowed in 
the same contexts within <dialog> as within <dl> and that <dt> must be 
explicitly allowed to contain meta-information related to the dialog 
participants. A <dt> without a related <dd> should thus represent an act 
(join/leave/banging the head in the table) in a dialog without related 
speech.

W.r.t. Jonas' quest for use cases, Google, in their www.Blogger.com 
service, already uses <dl> for comments. See for example the comments in 
Mr Last Week in HTML 5's postings [2]. However blogger.com puts 
meta-data in a second <dd> - <dialog> doesn't permit that:

<dl><dt>Name<dd>Comment<dd>Timestamp<dt>Name<dd>Comment<dd>Timestamp</dl>

With <dialog> however it will (or should) look more like this:

<aside><h2>Comments on article XYZ</h2><dialog>
<dt><time>14:22</time>  Anne</dt>
    <dd>I want to add foo.
<dt><time>14:45</time> Pingback from <a href=cool.example.org>Cool</a>
    <!-- no <dd> needed -->
<dt><time>14:59</time>  Trackback from X</dt>
    <dd>[...] My take on XYZ differs. [...]</dd>
<dt><time>15:22</time>  Sam to Ann</dt>
    <dd>Anne, I disagree.</dd> </dialog></aside>

Note, that we cannot know to whom something is uttered in a dialog. Just 
because a <dt><dd> pair appears after another such pair doesn't mean 
that there is dialog in the dialog. One need /something else/ (meta 
info) to know for sure who talks to whom. And I think <dt> may be used 
there to give such info.

I have also filed bug 7509 "Consider <dl type="dialog"> instead of 
<dialog>" [3] because <dl dialog> or <dl type="dialog"> should be more 
backward and future compatible. By future compatible I have in mind that 
<dialog> is perhaps an arbitrary usecase - we might want to have for 
example <dl type="recipes"> in the future.  (Note that I don't question 
the need and usefulness of a way to mark up dialogs in itself.)

Leif Halvard Silli On 09-09-06 20.21:   [....]
> 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>  

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7508
[2] 
http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-does-w3c-hate-deaf-people.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7509
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 10:50:07 UTC

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