- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:38:35 -0500
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Bruce Lawson <brucel at opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:51:55 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> the use-case for <figure> and <details> are >> sorta minimal anyway - it's enough that they can justify themselves, >> but just barely. > > Use case for figure is perhaps minimal. But details is hugely useful. It's > an incredibly common thing to want to collapse and hide a section of > explanatory text. Agreed, but <details> won't be usable at all in modern browsers (without hacking support in via js) until everyone updates. By the time <details> has native functionality it'll be safe to use <dt>/<dd> in it. For now we can just keep doing what we're already doing with javascript and do this with <div>s (or, as I often use, <dl>s). <figure> is actually worse off here, since it 'works' in modern browsers already (since it's nothing but a <div> with extra semantics). But, as you say, it's also much less useful in general terms than <details> will be. Staying with <div> for now won't be a big deal. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 2 October 2009 19:38:35 UTC