Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:32:09 -0000, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> > If I were forced to chose (e.g. if the chairs said the exact names 
> > were a matter of editorial discretion) then at the moment I would 
> > likely pick <figcaption> for <figure> (with deference to <optgroup>) 
> > and either <dsummary> or <summary> for <details>.
> Out of interest (I don't have an agenda) wouldn't you mint the same 
> element for both purposes (as you did with legend and dd/dt?)

If a suitable element name were found, possibly, though nobody has 
suggested anything suitable for both.

(If we're not reusing an existing element like <legend>, though, there's 
really not much to be gained with having the same element for both 
<details> and <legend>, because it still wouldn't match other similar 
cases in the language.)

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 23:30:35 UTC