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 21:56:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4AB2F6D3.5010205@burningbird.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Shelley Powers On 09-09-17 23.38:
>
>> 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:
>>>>> 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.
>
> I have no idea at all why the draft suddenly says that we can use <p> 
> for dialog. I took part in the the debate and saw no compelling 
> arguments. Perhaps it was Microsoft's un-support that made the deal?
>
> However, at the very least there was an effect: An issue was put under 
> light. But something else came out of it.
>
> So, what I mean is that there may come something out of it. But not 
> what you expect. So, you are wrong, but right.

Yet a decision is made that has generated out and out rejection from 
every web page author who has happened to see it. Vehemently rejected.

Why? What could possibly justify adding something to the HTML5 
specification that generates so much dislike. You were part of the 
discussion, but even you don't know why this decision was made. Was it 
based on Microsoft's input? Or was it based on a whim?

So, in a way I am, sadly, right, because though something comes of these 
discussions, chances are the something does not arise from these 
discussions. There's certainly no historical record of the debate 
leading to the decision, the accords made, the agreements, and 
disagreements given their due time.

It just suddenly appears one day in the HTML5 specification.

Shelley
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 02:57:00 GMT

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