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

Re: what is dt?

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:21:51 +0200
To: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u0enipeuidj3kv@zcorpandell.linkoping.osa>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:02:42 +0200, Shelley Powers  
<shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:

>>> We keep referencing the importance of semantics, but most of the  
>>> considerations about elements to use for Figure and Details have been  
>>> based on some physical characteristic or behavior. Physical  
>>> characteristics and behaviors, I should add, that came about because  
>>> of earlier, non-compatible semantics.
>>
>> That's exactly right - the other plausible existing elements are ruled  
>> out because of their pre-existing use and behavior. I don't have a  
>> strong opinion on <dt> vs. a new element - as far as I'm concerned,  
>> either is acceptable. All I wanted to do is clarify why <caption>,  
>> <label>, or other similar elements, are not an option for technical  
>> reasons that go beyond aesthetics.
>>
>
> Actually, label has been found to be acceptable for use with Figure.

I don't think <label> is acceptable, because it interacts with form  
controls and is generally allowed anywhere. What if you want a form  
control in the figure caption? What if you want a <label> as the figure  
content? It wouldn't work if <label> was used as the figure caption.

Also, <label> is rendered as an inline element in legacy browsers, but a  
figure caption should be block level.

<dt> does not have these problems.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 14:22:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC