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

Re: what is dt?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:24:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4AB513CF.7000602@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Lars Gunther On 09-09-19 17.41:

> 2009-09-18 21:55, Leif Halvard Silli skrev:
>> I must say that <dl figure > is a smaller jump than <p caption >.
> 
> I would say the opposite. As stated: In a normal dl the ORDER between dt 
> and dd is important. In figure they are supposed not to be.
> 
> Confusing!

Why do you discuss as if <figure>/<dl figure> is hammered in 
stone? Why do you discuss as if it decided that we will _not_ make 
<figure><dl figure> as similar as <dl> as possible?

We are debating about a subject that is in flux. The <figure> 
element doesn't yet exist. (And my own thinking is also in flux 
...) Thus, we can define it as we wish. We can choose to follow 
the DL rules. Wouldn't that be a simplification for you students? 
Couldn't such a thing in fact introduce them to the very useful - 
but underused - DL list?

So, we could define <dl figure>/<figure> so that <dt> always has 
to come first - like in a normal dl.

I hear that Lachlan say that that would be counter intuitive, as 
image captions will usually come after image. But, well, we have 
the CSS caption-side option. And we have the TABLE element, were 
the caption has to come first. And it can also be a simplification 
for authors that there is one place for it to occur - instead of 
them having to choose "were to I place the caption in my code today"?

The drawback to this is really mostly the lacking IE6/IE7 support 
for display:table-caption  ...  But as you have said: we should 
look to the future. And I there are workarounds, such as positioning.

> <dl figure> would mean that the order MIGHT be important depending on an 
> attribute. That is a very significant change to come from an attribute.
> 
> <p caption> just says "this paragraph has the role of being a caption". 
> If that is too much of a redefinition of p lets use:
> <div caption>
> 
> <dl figure> says "While this element has the NAME definition list, in 
> essence it is not such a list at all and its tag name is totally 
> meaningless." And getElementsByTagName is not an option to use any more 
> either.
> 
> It would be like a zoologist would say <mammal fish> "Yeah, the name is 
> mammal, but I really mean fish (and I am NOT talking about whales)." --
> 
> (2nd attempt, not from my Gmail this time...)

The point I made with regard to @caption is that it would be a big 
step to say that "this element no longer is the real content, but 
merely a label for the real content". That differentiation is also 
a challenge, I think, for authors.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 19 September 2009 17:25:13 UTC

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