Re: what is dt?

Shelley Powers On 09-09-17 23.38:

> 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:
>>>> 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 actually rather like Figure, and its fun to look at what will become 
> known as The D Defense, but...
> original objections to the reuse of dt/dd still stand.
> I have a bug on this, which is guess is our only avenue of protest we 
> have now. The discussion was good, though I don't think it will result 
> in anything happening. The previous discussion on SVG didn't go anywhere.
> Still, I guess we heard some interesting suggestions. Too bad, nothing 
> will come of them.

I have no idea at all why the draft suddenly says that we can use 
<p> for dialog. I took part in the the debate and saw no 
compelling arguments. Perhaps it was Microsoft's un-support that 
made the deal?

However, at the very least there was an effect: An issue was put 
under light. But something else came out of it.

So, what I mean is that there may come something out of it. But 
not what you expect. So, you are wrong, but right.
leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 01:10:28 UTC