- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:13:00 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
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. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 24 January 2010 05:13:35 UTC