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

Re: dt/dd in figure/details has killer rendering issues in ie6 and

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:19:42 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909230719i1ae3d735qfeb4b6ca82f5b2c5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-09-22 23.47:
> Tab, for <dl> you've interpreted dt as 'description title' and dd as
> 'description data', while in <details> you suggested dt as 'details title';
> and dd as 'details data';[1].  Hence, by analogy, do you suggest <ft> -
> figure title and <fd> - figure data?

It would have the benefit of naming consistency there, at least, and
makes the pattern being established by the reuse of <dt>/<dd> more
clear (which would help alleviate Shelley's concerns somewhat).*  I
wouldn't be opposed to elements with those names.

> But if we can't use <dt> and/or <dt> in both elements, then what is the
> /technical/ advantage of using them in just /one/?

I'm not certain what you mean by "technical advantage" here.

> We still need to define
> workarounds for the more common <figure> caption. And thus, why not rather
> drop the body element  (<dd> or whatever) and invent one, new caption
> element for both figure and details?

Well, <figure> and <details> aren't really related at all, except that
they're both new and both have their contents split into two distinct
pieces.  That's the only reason people keep drawing parallels;
otherwise they're quite distinct.

That said, I've got nothing against solely marking up the
caption/toggler; after all, that's how they were set up previously,
before <legend> got dumped.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 14:20:37 GMT

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