- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:51:13 -0500
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Keryx Web <webmaster at keryx.se> wrote: > I am arguing in favor of introducing a new element, which would be the zero > cost solution, since <details> is new anyway. It's not a zero-cost solution, though. It introduces *another* nearly identical heading-type element to the language, joining the ranks of the dozen+ we already have. Trying to remember what heading-type element to use in <details> as opposed to in <fieldset> or what-have-you is a learning nightmare of a different variety. > + No hacks besides those that we already use to get details working as such > in legacy browsers. <dt> only requires extra hacks in two browsers that are on the way out. Given a little bit more time they'll be gone completely, and we can stop worrying about this. > + When implementing details the browser vendors will not have a harder time > using a new element than they would using dt/dd. I'm not certain what you mean by this. Indeed they won't have a harder time - the difficulty will be the same either way. > + We would keep the several meanings per element count down, which from a > teachability POV is more important than keeping the total number of elements > down. > > And from that POV nuances are often harder to pick up than anything else. Just teach <dt>/<dd> in a way that makes this easier to learn. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 4 October 2009 07:51:13 UTC