- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:15:22 -0500
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > 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. You are. If something doesn't work in legacy browsers, and I can't hack around it (with the acceptableness of the hack depending on the difficulty of performing it and the value of the element), I won't use it when writing pages, nor will many/most other authors. > 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. While I'm sorta okay with <dt>/<dd> in <details>, I agree that within <figure> it's confusing. I'm putting my money on <h1>. It has some minor default display issues, but nothing major in my book (basically identical to the problems inherent in using <h1> for all your headings, which apparently aren't bad enough to kill that feature). ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 15:16:22 UTC