- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:15:30 -0500
- To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- CC: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Bruce Lawson wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:49:24 +0100, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com> > wrote: > >> Maciej wrote: >>>> 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? >> >> Actually, I'm okay with <dt>. It's not perfect but hey, rough >> consensus and running code. > > I think <dt> and <dd> are minging. But I agree with Jeremy; the > aesthetics aren't important. In their huge favour: we don't bake a > new element, they work so I can use details this decade (I care less > about figure personally). I also believe that dd/ dt have such a > history of being abused that no-one thinks they mean anything any way. > > We've heard the same argument about table summary and other elements, and frankly, I have to balk at the continued use of "so abused in the past", and no one knowing what they mean. Again, this is basing decisions on expediency, rather than reason, and such decisions will end up causing more confusion in the future, rather than fixing any confusion that arose in the past. I believe that making the situation worse is not considered a solution. Shelley
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 13:16:18 UTC