- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:59:37 -0500
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: > I have stated that dt/dd will not work for web page authors, and have my > arguments for such an opinion. This is no different than anyone else saying > such and such won't work because legacy browsers will crap out. Both are > describing a point of potential failure, and deserve to be respected for > such. As an author, using <dt>/<dd> for <details> seems fine. The letters match up, which is important from a mnemonic pov, and the basic idea works as well. <dt> in <dl> is "description title" to me, while <dd> is "description data". In <details>, they're instead "details title" and "details data". In practice they match up nicely as well in several aspects. I tend to implement accordions with <dl>, using <dt> as the toggle and hiding <dd> until its <dt> is clicked. It just makes sense, and it's really easy. Transferring that usage over to a <details> element would work just fine for me. I think that using <dl> for accordions is relatively common elsewhere too. It just feels natural - you have automatic scoping for the effect (only things in the <dl>), and the idea of key/value pairs that <dt>/<dd> expose is natural to hook this sort of behavior on. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 18:00:35 UTC