- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:59:33 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Leif Halvard Silli >> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no >> <mailto:xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>> wrote: >>> Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-09-17 19.59: >>>> 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". >>> >>> >>> So, perhaps <figure> could be renamed to something beginning on >>> <d...> ? ;-) >> >> It would certainly make things seem less retarded. > > I jokingly suggested <diagram> instead of <figure>, but I don't think > that would be an actual improvement. > > - Maciej > I take my previous email back. One thing we can do is close the one bug that I opened, and start another one specific to just Figure, recommending the removal of dd, and replacing dt with its own named caption element. Was there any consensus as to what this can be called? Shelley
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 22:00:23 UTC