-----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.)
