- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:25:49 +0100
- To: "Lars Gunther" <gunther@keryx.se>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:00:11 +0100, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se> wrote: > > Third: Allowing for dt/dd in figure and/or details will most certainly > lead to abuse, since sooner or later someone will generalize this into a > generic key-value paradigm. Seems to me that's what it is already; spec says "The dl element represents an association list consisting of zero or more name-value groups (a description list). Each group must consist of one or more names (dt elements) followed by one or more values (dd elements). Within a single dl element, there should not be more than one dt element for each name." http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html#the-dl-element > If we'd like one element for both - which I agree with Jeremy that we > might not - I suggest, since we are running out of synonyms, <rubric> > > http://www.synonym.com/definition/rubric/ I'd support rubric, but Hixie's adamant that a new element not be baked. we will only keep today's browsers for a > few more. Patience is a virtue. IE 6 has been with us since 2001, and will live on for a while yet. The current crop of browsers all have parsing problems with the initial proposal of re-using legend, which means that details and figure are unworkable in all current browsers. Therefore, no-one will use the new element. For me, details is a highly useful beast. bruce
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 11:26:42 UTC