Re: Implementor feedback (dialog and datepickers)

Lars Gunther On 09-09-02 22.57:

> 2009-09-02 18:13, Leif Halvard Silli skrev:
>> Lars Gunther On 09-09-02 13.10:
>> Even if your students change <dl> to <dialog>, they will still stumble
>> upon the unintuitive thing that <dialog> contains <dt> and <dd>, which
>> has no meaning what so ever inside a dialog. Thus they will be unable to
>> understand dialog unless they know <dl> first.
> 
> Yes, just like they would need to know why "links" are called 
> "<a>nchors" even though we today do not use <a name="foo"> anymore. But 
> a 2 minute history lesson is doable. Tweaking ordered lists, 
> block-quotes, quotes and cite elements is not. Example of such IMHO 
> convoluted markup (that also feeds into the cite element debate) at:
> http://tantek.com/presentations/2005/03/elementsofxhtml/#slide22

Such tweaking is far from what I proposed ... The difference 
between you and me are only <dialog></dialog> versus <dl 
type="dialog"></dl> or perhaps <dl dialog></dl>.

The <dialog> element has some costs, actually:

* It must be "created" via JavaScript in order to work at all in 
Internet Explorer.

* HTML 5 seems to advocate the use of <p> without </p>. But this 
doesn't work well in combination with new elements, not even in 
Opera, Firefox and Webkit. You can try this in any browser and see 
how it breaks down[1]:

<p>Dialog next.
<dialog><dt>Mr X<dd><p>Yes</dialog>
<dialog><dt>Mr Y<dd>No</dialog>


BTW: The anchor element is an anchor both with "name" and without 
"name".

[1] http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/224
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 22:24:28 UTC