- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:44:45 -0000
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG Public List" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:25:01 -0000, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >> So could we use footer where label was originally proposed? As it's >> as super special new html5 construct, there won't be any weird >> legacy parsing problems. It kind of makes sense in figure: >> >> <figure> >> <img ..> >> <footer>Hixie and Shelley singing "I'd like to teach the world to >> sing" at the WHATWG Xmas party</footer> >> </figure> >> >> And slightly less sense in details (you naturally gravitate towards >> <header>, even tho the spec for footer already says "Footers don't >> necessarily have to appear at the end of a section"): >> >> <details> >> <footer>Click here for expando loveliness!</footer> >> <p>Peekaboo!</p> >> </details> > > That doesn't really align with my personal sense of design taste. I > don't think <footer> is a good semantic fit. Oh, I agree - it's ugly. And means you couldn't currently have <details> inside a header or footer as they can't have any footer descendents. But it seems to me less ugly that <dd> and <dt> (whichever one of those goes round the actual figure and whichever one goes round the caption), and the fact that you can have one without the other, and the fact it could break some sites that have CSS specifying styles for dd and dt rather than dl>dd, dl>dd, and the fact that you need to hack for IE. But even that's less minging than legend, which is an excellent semantic fit, but which can't currently be used at all. But if you'd like to plug > that proposal into the wiki, feel free! Don't think I have keys to the wiki b -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal) www.twitter.com/brucel
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 10:45:31 UTC