W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: what is dt?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:06:32 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909180706r2784fc5cn6bb5b7152e4b749a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Shelley Powers
<shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> 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?
>> [snip]
> Yet a decision is made that has generated out and out rejection from every
> web page author who has happened to see it. Vehemently rejected.

No it has not.  Not even close.  A handful of people got themselves in
a twist because they saw <b> being recommended for something.
Overall, though, the current recommendation is nothing more than an
outlining of *current practice*.  We argued, *on this list*, that
<dialog> wasn't sufficient for marking up dialog, and that people were
already marking up dialog happily in various other manners (lists,
paragraphs, and sometimes tables), and that these alternate methods
*did* work because we had full flexibility.  Ian just chose a path
that seemed the most reasonable out of all of those (and I agree that
it's pretty reasonable and will probably change my chat room to
generate markup along those lines).

Please don't mistake mailing list heat for internet-wide rejection.  A
lot of us around here *like* arguing, and we did so well enough to
convince the editor that his idea wasn't worth the effort.

Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 14:07:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC