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 08:25:59 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270911110625t1ec158e2od573ec13436ac740@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>

I'm also hoping that if members of the group have questions, as James
did, they also address them in an email to this group. Otherwise I, or
others, can't respond to their concerns or questions.

 Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 14:26:33 UTC

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