- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@ltgt.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:01:30 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: >> Yeah, but there's also the floating idea that the content model of >> <dialog> could evolve later to allow "non-speech related information" >> (see http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7508 ). > > Bug 7508 is very inspired by how <dl> is defined ... > >> This doesn't (a priori) concern key-value lists though, which could >> therefore use a typed-<dl> instead of minting a new element. > > What is it that (a priori) makes it better to have a <dialog> element rather > than a typed - or "roled" - <dl> element? I see nothing. Having a content model that depends on the value of an attribute is something we should avoid; and that's something that would appear, if we use <dl role=dialog> instead of <dialog>, as soon as we start adding non-speech related information to a dialog (and make it non-conforming for a list of definitions and/or a key-value list). -- Thomas Broyer /tɔ.ma.bʁwa.je/
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 10:02:11 UTC