- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:28:30 +0100
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
James Graham On 09-11-11 11.15: > Shelley Powers wrote: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/DdDt > 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. Option a) interests me the most. And you are right that there are many interlinked issues here. So many that it is difficult to file a "clean" proposal. For instance whether <dt><dd> can be used inside <figure>/<detail> doesn't only affect <figure>/<detail> but also <dl>. Just like it affected <dl> whether we had <dialog> or not. (It still affects <dl> that the spec doesn't say that <dl> may be used for dialogs.) I believe that Shelley would heartily support using <dt> as caption for the <dd>, provided that the <dt> and the <dd> are children of <dl>. ;-) I don't know why you can't live with removing <figure><detail>. And are they equally important to you? As for myself: HTML5's draconian limitations on what <dl> may be used for is something that will have to change before /I/ can live with the spec! <figure>/<detail> are on the surface a different issue from <dialog>: They were not (I think) thought up specifically in in order to "split out" something from the <dl> element. However, the current HTML 5 "status quo", makes <figure><detail> close to <dl> in structure and "look". And if we look at HTML 4, then the link to <dl> lists becomes even clearer. For example, HTML 4 defines that we may use definition lists to present the features of a product in advertising [1]. If <dl> is suitable for advertising, then it is also suitable for presenting a photo - or several - from a holiday trip (the infamous Flickr use case)! May be the only proposed change that <dl> could benefit from is the name change: HTML5's "description list" instead of HTML4's "definition list"! The <dialog> element was replaced with some authoring advice. That's as good thing (except that I think the advice should include the option of using <dl>). And likewise, <figure>/<details> element could be replaced by author advice about how to use <dl>. [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/lists#h-10.1 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 00:29:05 UTC