- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:44:11 +0200
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
This rules out <dl role="dialog">, then, supposedly. But it perhaps also rules out <dialog> as it it somewhat problematic that <dialog> means something other than <dl role="dialog">. (It would be strange to have to do <dialog role="dialog">, for instance.) I've dabbled with <dl role="cite"> as an alternative. In <dl role="cite"> each <dt> would be equal to a <cite>, and each <dd> would be equal to a quote. This would be even more general than <dialog> is - it could be used for all kinds of lists that combine source with work, whether the source is a human or the name of a work. The problematic thing, w.r.t. <dialog> then, would be that <dialog> considers that there is a time based proceeding between each point in the list. Whereas there is not necessarily any amount of time between the items in a <dl role="cite"> list. Other possibilities: <dl role="log"> or <dl role="act">, Steven Faulkner On 09-09-10 12.38: > note that role="dialog" is already used in WAI-ARIA to indicate a dialog > window. > if the <dialog> element continues to be in HTML 5, it would be sensible for > it to be used as structural container for content that represents a scripted > dialog window. This is a use case that has many applications, far more i > would suggest than its current defined use. > 2009/9/10 Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net> >> 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). -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 00:44:58 UTC