- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:53:30 -0600
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:15 AM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: >>> Shelley Powers wrote: >>>> >>>> I finished the change proposal for this action item and this issue, >>>> located at: >>>> >>>> http://burningbird.net/html5/dtdd.htm >>>> >>> >>> This change proposal seems to contain two competing proposals: >>> >>> a) Remove <figure> and <details> from HTML5 >>> b) Use something else in place of <dd> and <dt> in <figure> and <details> >>> >>> This is problematic because b) is a change I could live with whilst a) is >>> one that I could not live with. I could also live with: >>> >>> c) Maintain the status quo. >>> >>> For this reason it would be difficult to give a good answer to whether I >>> support, or even "can live with" the proposal. If it came down to it I would >>> have to say "no" since the proposal contains the possibility of a change >>> that I cannot live with. >>> >>> I don't think it makes sense to have a change proposal that talks about >>> changing the definition of dd/dt without taking a definite position on what >>> to do with elements that depend on the current definition. In general I >>> think an individual change proposal should represent one complete and >>> consistent change to the spec rather than requiring multiple sequential >>> change proposals to be applied to get the spec into a consistent state. >>> >> >> >> This proposal does provide one consistent recommendation: remove the >> use of dt/dd from figure and details, and replace with another, new >> element. >> >> I specified the other option, but also said removal of figure and >> details, if addressed at all should be addressed in separate >> proposals, unrelated to the issue of the misuse of dt/dd. >> >> There is no confusion. >> >> Shelley >> > I have added further clarification to the change proposal that should, hopefully, remove any lingering confusion you might have, James. Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 13:53:58 UTC