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

Re: what is dt? use of summary in Figure

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:24:42 -0500
Message-ID: <4AB246AA.9080800@burningbird.net>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, public-html@w3.org
Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:26:47 +0200, Shelley Powers 
> <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:
>
>> Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> What about using a <summary> as a generalized element with <details>
>>> etc. Leif mentioned  this previously.
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0045.html
>
>> This strikes me as an interesting proposal, and when it comes to 
>> Figure, has been proposed by others[1]. The rejection of the idea, 
>> because of how browsers currently implement the DOM for HTML4 puzzles 
>> me, since we're changing the DOM for HTML5, anyway.
>
> <summary> would be no problem in <figure> and <details> as far as 
> parsing goes. In <table>, however, it would be a problem because in 
> legacy browsers the element would be moved outside the <table> in the 
> DOM.
>
Actually in legacy browsers, SVG in HTML doesn't even exist, except as a 
jumble of markup that confuses the heck out of HTML parsers. I'm 
assuming, though, that browsers that implement HTML5 would act 
appropriately with SVG. I may be too limited in my viewpoint, but I'm 
not particularly concerned about legacy browsers, because we're not 
talking about legacy HTML.

Regardless--with appreciations for note and caution--we should probably 
focus on topic thread, which is replacements for dt/dd where they're 
used outside of dl.

Thanks, though.

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 14:25:41 UTC

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