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

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
>   
>> Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-09-22 23.47:
>> 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?
>>     
>
> It would have the benefit of naming consistency there, at least, and
> makes the pattern being established by the reuse of <dt>/<dd> more
> clear (which would help alleviate Shelley's concerns somewhat).*  I
> wouldn't be opposed to elements with those names.
>
>   
Not really. Doesn't change the differing syntactic variations, which 
will confuse people. Doesn't really change that the only reason they 
were even considered was because of current physical implementations, 
which to me isn't sufficient justification.

I'd prefer the two elements remain as part of dl, and something else be 
used with Figure and/or Details.
>> 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/?
>>     
>
> I'm not certain what you mean by "technical advantage" here.
>
>   
>> 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?
>>     
>
> Well, <figure> and <details> aren't really related at all, except that
> they're both new and both have their contents split into two distinct
> pieces.  That's the only reason people keep drawing parallels;
> otherwise they're quite distinct.
>
> That said, I've got nothing against solely marking up the
> caption/toggler; after all, that's how they were set up previously,
> before <legend> got dumped.
>
> ~TJ
>
>   

A generic captioning element, that could be used with Figure and 
Details, and wherever else this type of functionality is needed seems to 
me to be less confusing, less problematical from an authoring 
standpoint, and won't cause the HTML5 specification to fall under its 
own weight.

Caption for table should have been defined generically but wasn't. So 
let's not make the same mistake with this new need.

Shelley

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 14:29:25 UTC