Re: ISSUE-83 ACTION-152 Change Proposal for the use of dt/dd in figure and details

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:15 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
> Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>> I finished the change proposal for this action item and this issue,
>> located at:
>>
>> http://burningbird.net/html5/dtdd.htm
>>
>
> This change proposal seems to contain two competing proposals:
>
> a) Remove <figure> and <details> from HTML5
> b) Use something else in place of <dd> and <dt> in <figure> and <details>
>
> This is problematic because b) is a change I could live with whilst a) is
> one that I could not live with. I could also live with:
>
> c) Maintain the status quo.
>
> For this reason it would be difficult to give a good answer to whether I
> support, or even "can live with" the proposal. If it came down to it I would
> have to say "no" since the proposal contains the possibility of a change
> that I cannot live with.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to have a change proposal that talks about
> changing the definition of dd/dt without taking a definite position on what
> to do with elements that depend on the current definition. In general I
> think an individual change proposal should represent one complete and
> consistent change to the spec rather than requiring multiple sequential
> change proposals to be applied to get the spec into a consistent state.
>


This proposal does provide one consistent recommendation: remove the
use of dt/dd from figure and details, and replace with another, new
element.

I specified the other option, but also said removal of figure and
details, if addressed at all should be addressed in separate
proposals, unrelated to the issue of the misuse of dt/dd.

There is no confusion.

Shelley

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 13:37:20 UTC