W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2008

[whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 - dialog

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:22:34 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0805151622h1fd9fa0cg5062c5331094a731@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Ernest Cline <ernestcline at mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Mike Wilson <mikewse at hotmail.com>
> >Sent: May 15, 2008 8:02 AM
> >To: 'WHATWG' <whatwg at whatwg.org>
> >Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 - dialog
> >
> >Yes, I also quite like the analogy with dl/ul/ol. But it may
> >be confusing when using dt and dd as child elements (as in
> >the current spec for dialog):
> >  <cl>
> >    <dt>
> >    <dd>
> >    ...
> >  </cl>
> >
> >That could be resolved by introducing elements ct and cd:
> >  <cl>
> >    <ct>
> >    <cd>
> >    ...
> >  </cl>
> >
> >and that I guess can be regarded as making things better OR
> >worse depending on your focus...
> >
> >Best regards
> >Mike Wilson
>
> Because of the backwards compatibility using <dt> and <dd> with a new
> dialog element would have with most existing UA's, I'd be leery of changing
> the names unless additional types of child elements for <dialog/> (by
> whatever name it gets) were added, such as an element to markup stage
> directions, audience response, or the like.  Then, since we'd be introducing
> enough new stuff to break compatibility anyway:
>
> <dialog/>
>  <speaker/> (what <dt/> currently is)
>  <speech/> (what <dd/> currently is)
>  <fx/> (a new element for stage effects, audience response etc.)


Yeah, I'm backing off of that position...  I'm back to liking plain <dialog>
or <talk>.  Either sounds great to me.

~TJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080515/9bd18d1e/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 16:22:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:02 UTC