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

Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:13:00 -0800
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <2968AA12-8AD1-4ED0-93CA-8A8F7279C4E8@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> So it sounds like no one else has strong feelings. I therefore suggest 
>> that Ian should implement the fcaption/dlabel Change Proposal: 
>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/DdDtFcaptionDlabel
>> I think it would be fine to pick either of <fcaption> or <figcaption>, 
>> and either of <dlabel> or <dsummary>. Once that change is made, the 
>> Chairs will post a Call for Consensus to close this issue by amicable 
>> resolution.
> <figcaption> seems reasonable, but can't we use <summary> instead of 
> <dsummary>? The argument that it would be confusing because of summary="" 
> doesn't seem to really hold water given that authors have no problems with 
> <title> and title="", <style> and style="", <span> and span="", or <cite> 
> and cite="", and nobody has particularly complained about us adding 
> <label> and label="" or <form> and form="" in HTML5. In fact the best 
> example may be <abbr> and abbr="", which haven't caused anyone any 
> confusion that I'm aware of, where the meaning is subtly different in 
> almost exactly the same way as proposed here, and where the attribute is 
> similarly considered by many to be a feature that should be removed from 
> the language anyway.

That sounds pretty convincing to me, I don't know of anyone being seriously confused by the cases above. And I agree your example with plain <summary> reads nicely. Shelley, are you willing to reconsider your objection on this point? Does anyone else have an opinion one way or the other?

(Side note:

> ...than it would be if we were to use <dsummary> -- the only elements 
> where HTML has initial-word as an element naming pattern are <iframe>, 
> whose etymology I could not determine,

I believe it stands for "inline frame".)

> I would hate to go through the heavy-weight process to decide on a single 
> letter in an element name, but I would also hate to pick a suboptimal 
> element name purely because of what, IMHO, is a weak objection.

Since this is essentially a bikeshed issue, then if we truly can't agree, one thing we could do is take it to a poll. I agree that it would be unfortunate to invoke the heavy-weight process for a single letter.

Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 05:13:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:57 UTC