- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:34:12 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, public-html@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-09-22 23.47: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Shelley Powers: >> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Leif Halvard Silli: >>>> Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-09-18 22.25: >>>> [... bike shed comment ignored ...] >> Whatever the technical issues are moot -- my original objections still >> stands: the way that dt/dd is used and reused throughout the HTML5 >> specification create an unnecessary level of confusion for web page authors, >> developers, and designers. >> >> Contrary to expectations in this group, web page authors, developers, and >> designers are also an audience for HTML5. > > For what it's worth, I'm exclusively a web author. And I like <dt> > and <dd> in <details>. I don't like how it's used in <figure>, > because the name is horrible, and if we have *both* a horrible name > and require a hack to get it to work, it's just not worth it in my > opinion. Tab, for <dl> you've interpreted dt as 'description title' and dd as 'description data', while in <details> you suggested dt as 'details title'; and dd as 'details data';[1]. Hence, by analogy, do you suggest <ft> - figure title and <fd> - figure data? But if we can't use <dt> and/or <dt> in both elements, then what is the /technical/ advantage of using them in just /one/? We still need to define workarounds for the more common <figure> caption. And thus, why not rather drop the body element (<dd> or whatever) and invent one, new caption element for both figure and details? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0720 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 00:34:55 UTC