- From: Jim Dabell <jim-www-html@jimdabell.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:49:41 +0000
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 9:18 pm, John Lewis wrote: [renaming <dl>] > Would > it make a lick of difference? Yes. Authors of HTML/XHTML1 would have > to learn new element names instead of using the old ones, They have to do this already, xhtml 2.0 is not meant to be backwards-compatible. What's the point in breaking compatibility if you aren't going to take advantage of it? > implementors > would presumably need to duplicate their default dl/dt/dd styling for > three identical but differently named elements, A couple of lines in a stylesheet would do this, unless I'm missing something. > and authors (new and > old) would have the dubious benefit of a more appropriate element > name. There's nothing dubious about it. The benefits of good names are widely accepted to apply to functions and variables, why not elements and attributes? > I think a clearly more beneficial course of action is to clarify that > dl/dt/dd are generic elements. The example in HTML4 implies that they > are, and a rewritten definition would make that implication explicit. I would be happier with this than leaving it ambiguous, but I do feel that naming and describing something as a definition list should count for something, it's very unintuitive to twist the meaning like that. -- Jim Dabell
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 12:54:08 UTC