- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:41:57 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote: > On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:43:50 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > > > - Elements requiring changes to <legend> parsing: <figure>, > > > <details> These elements seem quite useful, but they will be > > > unusable on the public Web until all browsers are updated to change > > > how they parse <legend> and the new versions are widely adopted. > > > [snip] We will consider fixing our parsing of <legend> outside > > > <fieldset> soon, so that we're not the blocker. But it seems like it > > > would be easier to change the elements that carry the label/caption. > > > > These elements aren't especially critical, so if people would feel > > like it was less of an issue to just not include them in this version, > > but to still fix the parsing of <legend>, and then to introduce them a > > few yeards down the road, once the parsing is fixed, then I'm fine > > with doing that > > Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The details element > is especially useful (I've seen sites pull in the whole jQuery library > just to make an expanding/ collapsing "details" div) and figure would be > very welcome to associate image captions with images. It's more like throwing out the soap with the soap dish. Waiting another few years is not a problem, especially since people are already working around the problem successfully. > Why not abandon the idea of reusing legend and use <c>, <description> or > some other such element? Because the problem with <legend> is temporary, whereas the problems introduced with a new element would be permanent. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 14 September 2009 08:37:11 UTC