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

Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:38:33 -0800
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <8B35C50E-7DFC-4525-A627-084B4FA59E80@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally, now is a fine time to start discussing the possible
>> replacements for dt/dd. Right now on the table we have:
>>
>> 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]
>>
>> We may get more proposals by the deadline, but it would be totally  
>> fine to
>> start discussing the submitted ones now. If anyone (including and  
>> perhaps
>> especially the various Change Proposal authors) has an opinion on  
>> which of
>> these replacement solutions they like best, and which they strongly  
>> dislike,
>> that would be valuable input.
>>
>
> I'll pull my fltcap suggestion. I don't have a strong view on naming
> elements, and your proposal for a separate caption element for each
> figure and details sounds good to me.

Thanks. I'll assume fltcap is no longer a live proposal.

[... snip ...]

>
> Therefore, I support C.

My own preference would be either (C) or (D). I don't feel strongly  
either way on the body elements. I am ok with the alternate names in  
(C) as well (<figcaption> instead of <flabel> and <dsummary> or  
<summary> instead of <dlabel>). I don't like (A) much because the name  
seems to strike people as odd and confusing. I don't like (B) because  
using an attribute for something like this is weird, and also it does  
not address <details>.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 23:39:08 GMT

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