2009-10-03 00:51, Tab Atkins Jr. skrev:
<dt>/<dd> only have parsing problems in IE6 and IE7. Both of them
*are*, finally, actually dropping off the radar. Windows 7 will
accelerate this as people upgrade with an OS that runs IE8 by default.
Give it 2 years or so and most places will be able to justify
ignoring IE7 (many/most sites already ignore IE6).
The IE6/7 problem is not the only one. A number of people, myself
included, have expressed dissatisfaction from a semantic and
teachability viewpoint.
It is not better to let dt/dd have three (or perhaps 2) different
meanings, and different syntactic rules depending upon the parent
element than it would be to have 2 more elements.
And if the use cases for details and/or figure is so weak, that they
would be dropped JUST BECAUSE they would introduce yet 1 or 2 additional
elements to make them work, than we might as well drop them.
Do it right or do not do it at all!
If an element has (1) a whole new semantic meaning in one place than it
has in another place, and (b) different syntactic rules in one place
than it has in another place, it is NOT THE SAME ELEMENT by definition.
Let's not kid ourselves. We ARE introducing new elements here. It just
so happens that they share the same name as 2 old ones. Or at least the
same abbreviated name, since some people suggest that they would be
expanded to "details type" and "details data", when used with details.
What further proof do you need to understand that we are de facto
introducing new elements, even if we confusingly, re-use old names?
--
Keryx Web (Lars Gunther)
http://keryx.se/
http://twitter.com/itpastorn/
http://itpastorn.blogspot.com/
