- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:24:42 -0500
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, public-html@w3.org
Simon Pieters wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:26:47 +0200, Shelley Powers > <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > >> Laura Carlson wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> What about using a <summary> as a generalized element with <details> >>> etc. Leif mentioned this previously. >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0045.html > >> This strikes me as an interesting proposal, and when it comes to >> Figure, has been proposed by others[1]. The rejection of the idea, >> because of how browsers currently implement the DOM for HTML4 puzzles >> me, since we're changing the DOM for HTML5, anyway. > > <summary> would be no problem in <figure> and <details> as far as > parsing goes. In <table>, however, it would be a problem because in > legacy browsers the element would be moved outside the <table> in the > DOM. > Actually in legacy browsers, SVG in HTML doesn't even exist, except as a jumble of markup that confuses the heck out of HTML parsers. I'm assuming, though, that browsers that implement HTML5 would act appropriately with SVG. I may be too limited in my viewpoint, but I'm not particularly concerned about legacy browsers, because we're not talking about legacy HTML. Regardless--with appreciations for note and caution--we should probably focus on topic thread, which is replacements for dt/dd where they're used outside of dl. Thanks, though. Shelley
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 14:25:41 UTC