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: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:31:47 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0270911271431nac38ae7k7de89f2f0f0c12c8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeroen van der Gun <noreplytopreventspam@blijbol.nl>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or we could use a new element, which doesn't require wrapping figure
>> in a div element, and also satisfy the two other expressed concerns,
>> too.
> Considering the benignness of this hack, and the fact that it's only
> going to be required as long as IE7 remains relevant, creating a new
> element seems excessive if this is the only reason.  (I was previously
> somewhat on the side of creating a new element, but it's just not
> necessary anymore.)

Hacks tend to persist long after they're needed. It becomes extremely
easy to lose the meaning behind the hack at some point, in which case
we'll end up with figures wrapped in divs long after they need to be.

Do we really want to issue a new specification that has to have hacks
built in, because of redefining existing elements? That seems to me to
run counter to the platform on which decisions have been made in the

A new element is just as simple, and it doesn't bring with is the
semantic and syntax concerns. Remember, the tech issue was one of
three concerns, and it wasn't my strongest concern. This hack, gentle
as it is, doesn't address either of the other two concerns.

Jeroen, this is automatically attached to the issue because of the
subject line. Do you want this email to be considered a formal

> ~TJ

Received on Friday, 27 November 2009 22:32:19 UTC

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