- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:42:59 -0700
- To: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
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>. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 09:43:41 UTC