On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Ernest Cline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Mike Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: May 15, 2008 8:02 AM > >To: 'WHATWG' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5 - dialog > > > >Yes, I also quite like the analogy with dl/ul/ol. But it may > >be confusing when using dt and dd as child elements (as in > >the current spec for dialog): > > <cl> > > <dt> > > <dd> > > ... > > </cl> > > > >That could be resolved by introducing elements ct and cd: > > <cl> > > <ct> > > <cd> > > ... > > </cl> > > > >and that I guess can be regarded as making things better OR > >worse depending on your focus... > > > >Best regards > >Mike Wilson > > Because of the backwards compatibility using <dt> and <dd> with a new > dialog element would have with most existing UA's, I'd be leery of changing > the names unless additional types of child elements for <dialog/> (by > whatever name it gets) were added, such as an element to markup stage > directions, audience response, or the like. Then, since we'd be introducing > enough new stuff to break compatibility anyway: > > <dialog/> > <speaker/> (what <dt/> currently is) > <speech/> (what <dd/> currently is) > <fx/> (a new element for stage effects, audience response etc.) Yeah, I'm backing off of that position... I'm back to liking plain <dialog> or <talk>. Either sounds great to me. ~TJ