W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [Bug 7508] <dialog> needs a way to add non-speech related information

From: Stephen Stewart <carisenda@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:25:39 +0100
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <5EE060B3-21AB-4D7C-B0FE-7FF7F783A36D@gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>

On 10 Sep 2009, at 04:03, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Stephen Stewart On 09-09-09 16.05:
>
>> On 9 Sep 2009, at 14:37, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Stephen added:
>>>> Some examples of chat on the web can be found at:
>>>>
>>>> http://projectcerbera.com/!dev/irc-logs/day
>
>
> I had a look at that page - was quite possible to represent that
> chat log as a <dl> list.
>
>      [...]
>
>>>> Mibbit.com similarly uses a <table> but I think one example  
>>>> with   <table> is enough.
>>>
>>> Bug 7808 [1] is about making <dialog> work *properly* [...]
>> Sorry, I got confused by the summary: "<dialog> needs a way to add  
>> non- speech related information" and the current, not set in stone,  
>> status  of HTML5.
>
>
> Your examples demonstrates that authors needs to learn how to mark
> up dialogs with <dialog>/<dl> - in that way it was very related ...
>
>>> If you think that dialogs are better, more accessible and more   
>>> simply  marked up via other means, then that would be another bug   
>>> report. I'll only say that I think it is fruitless to say that we   
>>> should not have a <dialog> element if you at the same time also  
>>> want  to advice against using <dl> for dialog. Personally I think  
>>> we could  continue HTML 4's advice to use <dl> for dialogs,  
>>> especially if we  add an attribute which informs that it is a  
>>> dialog - see bug 7509[2].
>> I do think that dialogues are more simply and better marked up by   
>> other means,
>
>
> Such as? (The draft, although not perfect, tells us where to put the  
> name and where to put the speech ... There is a recipe and it is  
> simple.)
>
>> I also think that since most popular chat mark-up appears  not to  
>> be using <dl> as encouraged by HTML 4 we should at least  consider  
>> the alternatives,
>
>
> There has been a substream of people that have used <dl> always.  
> (There would be more if it was simpler to style.)
>
>> or remove it altogether and use what we  have in <section> <h> and  
>> <p>. I lean toward the latter.
>
>
> Would you even use a <dl> for a glossary ... ?
>
> Why do you want to use h1-h6 elements? To get an outline/ToC with  
> all the postings? Here is an almost real posting from a Norwegian  
> online newspaper, with a subject line represented with a <h5>:
>
> <dt>Mr Waffel said, yesterday:</dt><dd>
> <h5>RE: Norway won't reach the soccer final</h5>
> <p>Yes, we will.</p>
> <aside><a>New comment</a> <a>Reply</a> <a>Report</a></aside>
> </dd>

My sense of it is that there are so many different and varied types of  
dialogue available to mark-up that limiting a <dialog> to a set  
structure like <dt><dd> is not far from saying you can only have <h1>  
and <p> in <article>. Yes <dt><dd> is a perfect fit in some instances  
but not in all (in my opinion not many).

In the process of discussing this I've come to the conclusion <dialog>  
should be removed or perhaps become a simple sectioning element with  
some examples[1] of how chat can be marked up within it.

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/chat-examples

>
> -- 
> leif halvard silli
>

--
Stephen Stewart
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 09:26:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:26 GMT