W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [Bug 7509] Consider <dl type="dialog"> instead of <dialog>

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:15:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA988AD.8060006@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Thomas Broyer On 09-09-10 12.01:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>>> Yeah, but there's also the floating idea that the content model of
>>> <dialog> could evolve later to allow "non-speech related information"
>>> (see http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7508 ).
>> Bug 7508 is very inspired by how <dl> is defined ...
>>> This doesn't (a priori) concern key-value lists though, which could
>>> therefore use a typed-<dl> instead of minting a new element.
>> What is it that (a priori) makes it better to have a <dialog> element rather
>> than a typed - or "roled" - <dl> element? I see nothing.
> Having a content model that depends on the value of an attribute is
> something we should avoid; and that's something that would appear, if
> we use <dl role=dialog> instead of <dialog>, as soon as we start
> adding non-speech related information to a dialog (and make it
> non-conforming for a list of definitions and/or a key-value list).

Sorry, I did not get this. Why is it OK to use an attribute to 
specify that it is an associative /property/ list. But not OK to 
use an attribute to specify that it is an associative /dialog/ list?

I think you put too much weight on the speech thing. An IRC log 
does not represent speech, for instance. And the minutes of a 
meeting only represents excerpts of what has been said.

As to what you say about non-conforming - did you have in mind 
that I proposed not adding a <dd> if nothing is said? (This would 
make all the "sister <dt>s" alternative, if it was interpreted as 
a <dl> list.

I'm in doubt about that detail. For the moment I think it should 
be added. But I am also in doubt about whether it is a good idea 
that two adjacent <dt>'s will _always_ be evaluated as a 
alternatives. Often, if you have this:

	<dt>You<dd>Second person, singular

then they will consider the first simply be lacking info. It is 
unlikely that they will - as the draft say they should - link the 
"me" to the "you".

I would suggest that this alternatives association was made 
possible to disable/enable via an attribute. Such association can 
be useful, also in dialogs! Hence even dialogs should have that 
option. But it may not always be what one wants - no matter what 
kind of list you are dealing with.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 23:16:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC