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

Re: what is dt?

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:58:40 +0100
To: "Jeremy Keith" <jeremy@adactio.com>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u0ebb2fch8on37@bruce-pc>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:49:24 +0100, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>  
wrote:

> Maciej wrote:
>>> So if we're going to discuss either:
>>> a) finding a better element to recycle for captioning <figure>s or
>>> b) creating a new element for captioning <figure>s,
>>
>> Do you have any ideas for other elements to recycle?
>
> Actually, I'm okay with <dt>. It's not perfect but hey, rough consensus  
> and running code.

I think <dt> and <dd> are minging. But I agree with Jeremy; the aesthetics  
aren't important. In their huge favour: we  don't bake a new element, they  
work so I can use details this decade (I care less about figure  
personally). I also believe that dd/ dt have such a history of being  
abused that no-one thinks they mean anything any way.


-- 
Hang loose and stay groovy,

Bruce Lawson
Web Evangelist
www.opera.com (work)
www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal)
www.twitter.com/brucel
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 10:00:05 GMT

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