- From: Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:13:48 -0700
On 4/10/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com> wrote: > Kevin Marks wrote: > > > I think the <dialog> example is a retrograde step. The > > <ol><li><cite><q|blockquote> pattern seems much better than redefining > > <dt> and <dd>, which will confuse XOXO parsers that try to be > > Postelian. Did I miss some reasoning here? > > Fictional dialogs don't involve the excerpt and citation of external > sources, which is what q/blockquote and cite are properly for. Given the > HTML4 spec's own use of dt and dd, it's far from clear that any > redefinition is involved. That isn't to suggest that dt and dd are > optimal however. My point is that this is breaking the expected containment of <dt><dd> in a <dl>- if you want a new structure purely for dialog, define <speaker> and keep <q>. I really fail to see why redefining a definition list as speech is less 'proper' than expanding the context of <q> slightly.
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:13:48 UTC