- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:10:15 +0200
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:55:47 +0200, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Sep 1, 2009, at 07:14 , Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> - <dialog> element >>> This essentially gives the same behavior as <dl> but with appropriate >>> semantics for logs of conversations. It seems useful and easy to >>> implement. >> >> Useful for what? I don't yet understand what anyone needs this element >> for. > > Yeah, unlike the others this one doesn't strike me as making the cut. As > currently specified it doesn't see to me to be up to representing all > but the simplest form of dialogue. You need more structure than that for > a screenplay, and even a chat log requires things like joins/parts. This > seems best left up to a form of microdata. Apparently Microdata is not capable of expressing such things as you cannot associate an item with a DOM node of some sorts. And if you want to mark up a chat log it seems like you might want that as a line can contain an image, URL, video, emphasized text, etc. So textContent would not be sufficient. Like HTML5's Super Friends I also think that <article> should probably be removed and I suggested Microdata could be used instead. However, the same problem exists there. I think we should change Microdata to address this case. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 11:11:04 UTC