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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:25:01 -0800
Cc: HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <FDFD29D2-8D7F-40B1-AAE9-2505F29D30BA@apple.com>
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>

On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Bruce Lawson wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:16:58 -0000, Maciej Stachowiak  
> <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> 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
> [snip]
>> 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 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-footer-element 
>  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 (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#sectioning-root 
> )
> 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:
> <figure>
> <img ..>
> <footer>Hixie and Shelley singing "I'd like to teach the world to  
> sing" at the WHATWG Xmas party</footer>
> </figure>
> 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"):
> <details>
> <footer>Click here for expando loveliness!</footer>
> <p>Peekaboo!</p>
> </details>

That doesn't really align with my personal sense of design taste. I  
don't think <footer> is a good semantic fit. But if you'd like to plug  
that proposal into the wiki, feel free!


Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 23:25:37 UTC

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