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 07:53:30 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270911110553l234e8555l5784a4fb83c4b3f8@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>


I have added further clarification to the change proposal that should,
hopefully, remove any lingering confusion you might have, James.

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 13:53:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC