- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:55:36 -0600
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Jeremy Keith <jeremy at adactio.com> wrote: > On October 14th, Hixie wrote: >> >> As far as I can see the options are as follows: >> >> 1. Drop support for <details> and <figure> for now, revisit it later. >> >> 2. Use <legend>, and don't expect to be able to use it in any browsers >> ? sanely for a few years. >> >> 3. Use <dt>/<dd>, and don't expect to be able to use it in old versions >> ? of IE without rather complicated and elaborate hacks for a few years. >> >> 4. Invent a new element with a weird name (since all the good names are >> ? taken already), and don't expect to be able to use it in IE without >> ? hacks for a few years. >> >> I am not convinced of the wisdom of #4. I prefer #2 long term, but I see >> the argument for #3. > > It looks like the workaround for #3 isn't quite as arduous as it first > appeared: > > http://blog.jeroenvandergun.nl/7-html5-figure-and-details-do-not-break-in-ie > > Wrapping the <details> or <figure> element in a <div> seems to fix IE's > parsing. It's still not ideal but it's much better than the conditional > comment <object> hackery. > > (and again, this only relates to versions of IE before IE8) > > So, on balance, #3 is looking more reasonable than #2 (which fails in a lot > more browsers). Yup, the problems with #3 appear to be solved with only a minimum of hackery (no more than we're already doing to get HTML5 working in those legacy browsers). ~TJ
Received on Friday, 27 November 2009 07:55:36 UTC