Re: DIALOG Issues Which Have Already Been Submitted as Proposals (includes DL)

Gregory J. Rosmaita On 09-09-17 20.21:

> * PART 1. dialog/dialogue element name disambiguation

The <dialog> has been dropped from the draft, so the discussion 
here only relates to whether the element <d> that you propose, 
should be called <d> or <dialog>/<dialogue>.

> * PART 2: Proposal - D: A Single-Letter Element Name for Dialogue
> * PART 3: DL Should Give Structure to, Not Generically Indicate, Dialogue

I like the last two ideas quite well. Some notes below.

> =-=-=
> PART 2: Proposal - D: A Single-Letter Element Name for Dialogue
>    Note: Interactive discussion of this proposal is conducted on the D
>    Element's Discussion Page [2.1].
>    Rationale: Since a dialogue element would be used quite often, the
>    shortest element name is the best element name for the semantic
>    concept of "dialogue".

The spelling issues is another reason. Plus, I feel, that the name 
becomes more "international" when it is shortened. If we study 
many of the new elements that are added in HTML 5, they tend to be 
longer than those in HTML 4 ... One got to think about why ...

> Element Requirements
>    1. Dialogue, indicated by the single-letter element <D> ... </D>
>    should not be limited to a block-level container; instead, D should be
>    capable of serving as both a block level and an inline element, in
>    accordance with the precedent set by: INS and DEL.

That's a good idea.

> <!-- begin example of inline dialogue -->
> <p><d class="f2">So, then what happened?</d> she asked in a hoarse
> whisper, sliding into a secluded booth.</p>
> <p><d class="m1">Well,</d> drawled Marlowe, taking his seat, <d
> class="m1">that's the odd thing -- nothing happened at all...</d>
> </p>
> <!-- end example of inline dialogue -->

Currently the draft advice users to use <p> for dialog. Your 
proposal make it possible to use both <p> and <dl>. Quite nice.

>    4. when used as a block level element, there needs to be a child
>    element of D which can declaratively mark part of the text as not
>    being dialog, such as stage directions, cues, description of
>    non-verbal action, and so on; in the following example, ND ("not
>    dialogue"), has been used and is being proposed to fill this need:

Such a <nd> element might be a good idea. But where should it go? 
You place into the <dd> in your example:

> <!-- begin example -->
> <d>
> <dl>
> <dt>Shopkeeper</dt>
> <dd><nd>[obviously lying]</nd> Sorry, we're just closing for lunch</dd>
> </dl>
> </d>
> <!-- end example -->

However, as I have said earlier in the discussion, that kind of 
info could also go into the <dt> - I find that more pure. The name 
of the voice could be marked up with <cite>. And then we would not 
need the <nd> element.

>    1. a DL is not a dialogue string, but a definition list; changing DL
>    to indicate dialogue is breaking backwards compatibility;
>    2. there is a need for DL as a definition list -- it should not be 
>    watered down to specifically refer to dialog  [...]

Agree very strongly about what <dl> can be used for.
leif halvard sili

Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 19:05:19 UTC