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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:38:41 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270911110538x7d236250nbc1422023a87262a@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Or I should have said, there might be confusion but this email should
address it.

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 13:39:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:03 UTC