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

Re: what is dt?

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:38:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4AB2AC68.8090305@burningbird.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
>> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no 
>> <mailto:xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>> wrote:
>>> Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-09-17 19.59:
>>>> As an author, using <dt>/<dd> for <details> seems fine.  The letters
>>>> match up, which is important from a mnemonic pov, and the basic idea
>>>> works as well.  <dt> in <dl> is "description title" to me, while <dd>
>>>> is "description data".  In <details>, they're instead "details title"
>>>> and "details data".
>>>
>>>
>>> So, perhaps <figure> could be renamed to something beginning on 
>>> <d...> ? ;-)
>>
>> It would certainly make things seem less retarded.
>
> I jokingly suggested <diagram> instead of <figure>, but I don't think 
> that would be an actual improvement.
>
>  - Maciej
>
I actually rather like Figure, and its fun to look at what will become 
known as The D Defense, but...

...my original objections to the reuse of dt/dd still stand.

I have a bug on this, which is guess is our only avenue of protest we 
have now. The discussion was good, though I don't think it will result 
in anything happening. The previous discussion on SVG didn't go anywhere.

Still, I guess we heard some interesting suggestions. Too bad, nothing 
will come of them.

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 21:39:37 GMT

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