- From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 19:13:38 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
-----Original Message----- >From: Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> >Sent: May 13, 2008 6:09 PM >To: Pawe? Stradomski <pstradomski at gmail.com> >Cc: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org >Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 > >On Tue, 13 May 2008, Pawe? Stradomski wrote: >> W li?cie Ian Hickson z dnia wtorek 13 maja 2008: >> > > * I understand the concept of the <dialog/> element but it's named >> > > completely wrong. The point is to markup a conversation between two or >> > > more parties. The problem is that the word "dialog", when in used in >> > > user interfaces, refers to small windows that can be interacted with. >> > > When I first read about this element, I assumed it was a way to indicate >> > > that part of the page is a dialog window outside of the normal flow of >> > > the document (which I thought was cool). After reading the rest, I was >> > > disappointed to find out that wasn't the intent. I'd rename this element >> > > as <conversation/> or <discussion/> to avoid such misunderstandings. >> > >> > I agree that the name is suboptimal but those names are worse (they're >> > too long, and they're overly specific). I'm not sure what to do about >> > this. >> >> Perhaps <talk> ? Short and simple, although not exactly equal in meaning >> to <dialog>. > >That's probably the best suggestion so far, but I'm still not convinced >it's really much better than <dialog>. I think it has at least as many >other interpretations (e.g. what we call a "talk" over here is really a >slide show). > The only synonym of dialog that is anywhere near as general seems to be <discourse/>. The other possibility is <dialogue/> since the computing uses that cause confusion seem to have standardized on the shorter spelling.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:13:38 UTC