W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Work on Alternate Proposals for ISSUE-83 dt-dd-semantics

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:51:42 -0000
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG Public List" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u6d4ggi4h8on37@bruce-pc>
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:16:58 -0000, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  

> On ISSUE-83 dt-dd-semantics, it seems like many people roughly agree  
> with Shelley's reasoning on Shelley's issue, but prefer other  
> alternatives to the proposed "fltcap" element.
> Lachlan Hunt started a wiki page to come up with shared rationale, and  
> flesh out the various proposals:
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Change_Proposal:_figure_and_details
> If anyone would like to write up these other ideas, or contribute to the  
> shared rationale, or improve an existing writeup, or add a new idea,  
> please feel free to do so.

Is footer allowed as a child of details and figure? It appears so, as the  
spec for footer  
says "The footer element represents a footer for its nearest ancestor  
sectioning content or sectioning root element", and sectioning root  
elements include details and figure  

So could we use footer where label was originally proposed? As it's as  
super special new html5 construct, there won't be any weird legacy parsing  
problems. It kind of makes sense in figure:

  <img ..>
  <footer>Hixie and Shelley singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing"  
at the WHATWG Xmas party</footer>

And slightly less sense in details (you naturally gravitate towards  
<header>, even tho the spec for footer already says "Footers don't  
necessarily have to appear at the end of a section"):

<footer>Click here for expando loveliness!</footer>

Hang loose and stay groovy,

Bruce Lawson
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 22:52:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC