Re: [Bug 7509] Consider <dl type="dialog"> instead of <dialog>

This rules out <dl role="dialog">, then, supposedly. But it 
perhaps also rules out <dialog> as it it somewhat problematic that 
<dialog> means something other than <dl role="dialog">. (It would 
be strange to have to do <dialog role="dialog">, for instance.)

I've dabbled with <dl role="cite"> as an alternative. In <dl 
role="cite"> each <dt> would be equal to a <cite>, and each <dd> 
would be equal to a quote.  This would be even more general than 
<dialog> is - it could be used for all kinds of lists that combine 
source with work, whether the source is a human or the name of a work.

The problematic thing, w.r.t. <dialog> then, would be that 
<dialog> considers that there is a time based proceeding between 
each point in the list. Whereas there is not necessarily any 
amount of time between the items in a <dl role="cite"> list.

Other possibilities: <dl role="log"> or <dl role="act">,

Steven Faulkner On 09-09-10 12.38:

> note that role="dialog" is already used in WAI-ARIA to indicate a dialog
> window.
> if the <dialog> element continues to be in HTML 5, it would be sensible for
> it to be used as structural container for content that represents a scripted
> dialog window. This is a use case that has many applications, far more i
> would suggest than its current defined use.

> 2009/9/10 Thomas Broyer <>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
>> <> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, but there's also the floating idea that the content model of
>>>> <dialog> could evolve later to allow "non-speech related information"
>>>> (see ).
>>> Bug 7508 is very inspired by how <dl> is defined ...
>>>> This doesn't (a priori) concern key-value lists though, which could
>>>> therefore use a typed-<dl> instead of minting a new element.
>>> What is it that (a priori) makes it better to have a <dialog> element
>> rather
>>> than a typed - or "roled" - <dl> element? I see nothing.
>> Having a content model that depends on the value of an attribute is
>> something we should avoid; and that's something that would appear, if
>> we use <dl role=dialog> instead of <dialog>, as soon as we start
>> adding non-speech related information to a dialog (and make it
>> non-conforming for a list of definitions and/or a key-value list).

leif halvard silli

Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 00:44:56 UTC