Re: (not really) Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

On Jan 14, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Krzysztof Maczyński wrote:

> Sorry, Maciej, for sending it previously to you only. I clicked a  
> wrong button.
> I'll repeat my proposal (apparently unnoticed by others than  
> Shelley), noting that Shelley's Change Proposal doesn't meet my  
> expectation, and also that it's about details per se, not dt or dd.  
> Why not have a details element (possibly more than one even)  
> _inside_ the element for which the author provides details and have  
> them go into that element? That's more natural and flexible, it  
> seems to me.

I think this would not work well with the intended semantics,  
rendering and behavior of <details>. See the example in the spec that  
includes pictures. It also does not cover <figure>. Your proposal  
would require every element to potentially have expand/collapse  
rendering and behavior based on whether it contains <details>  
children, which is both painful to implement and hard to understand.


Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 02:39:39 UTC