Re: what is dt?

On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:42 AM, Jeremy Keith wrote:

> Shelley wrote:
>> Yes, I think that, among our other concerns, we can also include a  
>> concern about the mnemonics of dt/dd in Figure.
> I agree that it feels counterintuitive to use <dt>/<dd> inside  
> <figure> but, IMHO, it does make sense inside <details> simply  
> because the word "details" begins with a letter D  just as dt/dd  
> made sense inside <dialog> when that element existed.

Indeed, it seems a little more natural because of the "d". But that  
generalization of <dt>/<dd> semantics makes it a little more natural  
for <figure> than it would be otherwise.

> So if we're going to discuss either:
> a) finding a better element to recycle for captioning <figure>s or
> b) creating a new element for captioning <figure>s,

Do you have any ideas for other elements to recycle? I posted the  
problems with most of the existing ones that sound like a good fit  
based on existing semantics. It's possible to use elements with weak  
or null semantics, like <div>, <span> or <b>, but that doesn't seem  
like good design taste. <header>  could work on a technical level, but  
the name doesn't seem like a great fit, and I think it could be more  
confusing than applying the <dt>/<dd> pattern.

> I think it would be good to keep <details> out of the discussion.

Sounds ok to me, though I'm not sure Shelley would agree. She seems  
concerned about any alternate use for <dt>.


Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 09:43:41 UTC