W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:25:39 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001141525n1d81b307yecfbc0d9451c646f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> In terms of formal process, here's what I expect is going to happen:
>>
>> 1) Most likely, no one will write a "zero edits" Counter-Proposal by the
>> deadline.
>> 2) At that point, we'll essentially be decided to get rid of <dt>/<dd> for
>> <figure> and <details>, but with multiple options for what replaces them.
>> 3) My hope is that in follow-up discussion we can pare down the options. My
>> hope is that we'll find a single option which is most preferred by the Working
>> Group, and agree that we can get behind it without having a formal bakeoff.
>> 4) If we do get down to a single preferred option, I think there are
>> reasonable odds that the editor will just adopt it, leading to an amicable
>> resolution, and sparing us the work of a formal Working Group decision.
>
> Indeed, I don't think there's particularly any need to go through the long
> drawn-out process in this instance, since this is primarily a judgement
> call and since what I consider to be the better call clearly doesn't have
> the support of the group. :-)
>
>
>> A) Use <fltcap> as the caption for both <details> and <figure>. No special
>> body elements. [Submitted by Shelley Powers]
>> B) Use a caption="" attribute on any element as the caption for <figure>, with
>> no special body element. No change for <details>. [Submitted by Tab Atkins]
>> C) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the caption for
>> <details>. No special body elements. [Submitted by Maciej Stachowiak]
>> D) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the caption for
>> <details>. Use optional <fbody> and <dbody> respectively for their bodies.
>> [Submitted by Tab Atkins]
>
> Personally I have a strong preference to option C of these, though no
> strong opinion on what the names should be. If I were forced to chose
> (e.g. if the chairs said the exact names were a matter of editorial
> discretion) then at the moment I would likely pick <figcaption> for
> <figure> (with deference to <optgroup>) and either <dsummary> or <summary>
> for <details>. However, I haven't studied the names carefully (since my
> editorial judgement was that we should use <legend> or <dt>/<dd>), and
> were I to chose I would have to do so carefully before picking one or the
> other, as with any change to the spec.
>
> HTH,
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL


I won't support summary, which will just cause confusion with the
summary attribute.


> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.

Shelley

> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 23:26:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT