Re: dt/dd in figure/details has killer rendering issues in ie6 and

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?

leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 00:34:55 UTC