[whatwg] The <dialog> element and related topics

[Ian Hickson]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 html at nczonline.net wrote:
>
>     * I understand the concept of the <dialog/> element but it's named 
> completely wrong. The point is to markup a conversation between two or 
> more parties. The problem is that the word "dialog", when in used in 
> user interfaces, refers to small windows that can be interacted with. 
> When I first read about this element, I assumed it was a way to indicate 
> that part of the page is a dialog window outside of the normal flow of 
> the document (which I thought was cool). After reading the rest, I was 
> disappointed to find out that wasn't the intent. I'd rename this element 
> as <conversation/> or <discussion/> to avoid such misunderstandings.

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
>
> I recommend <transcript> because it refers to a conversation that has 
> been put down, as compared to a live <conversation> (I do not recommend 
> introducing the latter, of course, as HTML is not live).

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Smylers wrote, regarding the <transcript> idea:
>
> However many things in webpages are things which have been written down!
> 
> This is specifically a transcript of some speech -- not a transcript of 
> commands typed at a computer prompt, nor an exam transcript, nor any 
> other kind of transcript.
> 
> So focusing on the thing being transcribed, the speech, seems more 
> sensible; that it has been written down is something which will be 
> readily apparent to anybody reading it!

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Køi¹tof ®elechovski wrote:
>
> Commands typed at a computer prompt do form a conversation between the 
> commander and the executor (if the executor responds - otherwise it is 
> good old CODE). On the other hand, a speech is closer to a monologue 
> (soliloquy).

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Smylers wrote, regarding the <talk> idea:
> 
> Indeed; as a noun a "talk" seems to refer to a presentation more often 
> than the action of talking.  <talking> would be less subject to 
> misinterpretation, but the gerund form makes an awkward tag name.

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Køi¹tof ®elechovski wrote, regarding <converse>:
>
> "converse" is more an adjective like "opposite" to me.  Which is even 
> more awkward.

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote, regarding <talk>:
>
> Honestly, though, are we concerned that people will think a <talk> 
> element in html refers to a slideshow?  The ambiguity of <dialog> occurs 
> because there is a very reasonable and natural interpretation for the 
> element name within the context of web applications that happens to be 
> completely wrong. <talk>, while certainly ambiguous in some ways, is 
> extremely clear within the context of a web application.  There is no 
> other major existing entity or idea with the same or similar name for it 
> to clash with.

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Simon Pieters wrote, regarding <dialogue>:
> 
> Also see http://forums.whatwg.org/viewtopic.php?t=24 for discussion 
> about <dialog> vs <dialogue>.
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > 
> > Experience with language="" on <script> suggests that many authors 
> > have serious difficulties spelling words that contain the "gu" letter 
> > pair.
> 
> I, too, think that the word "dialog" sounds more like dialog window or 
> dialog box than a dialogue.
> 
> I'd prefer dialogue over dialog for following reasons:
> 
> - cannot be confused with dialog box or dialog window
> 
> - the dialogue tag would probably most often be generated by CMS system 
> or authoring software so spelling errors are not such a big issue
> 
> - dialogue is pretty seldom used feature and I believe it doesn't 
> deserve any shorter tag
> 
> If <dialog> is used instead of <dialogue> then it should be designed in 
> a such way that it can be used for dialog box in addition to dialogue 
> (e.g. chat) in the future.

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> I severely doubt this is possible or desirable.  It would make it *more* 
> confusing, I think, if <dialog> was meant for dialog boxes *and* marking 
> up conversations.
> 
> Just to throw out yet another possibility, how about <convo>?  I don't 
> like it too much, but it at least avoids most of the issues that plagued 
> the other submissions.  I'm generally convinced that <dialog> is an okay 
> choice for this, but if we *were* to change, I at least want to make 
> sure it's something I can get behind.
> 
> My personal favorite alternate suggestion so far has been <cl>.  Short 
> and a little confusing?  Maybe.  But it has the benefit of being 
> unambiguous and parallels existing tags with similar syntax.  But meh, 
> it's probably not quite right, as <dialog> isn't meant to be 
> illustrating a conversation list, but rather is a list illustrating a 
> conversation.

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Charles wrote:
>
> My personal favorite alternate suggestion so far has been <cl>.

On Thu, 15 May 2008, Mike Wilson wrote:
> 
> 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...

On Wed, 14 May 2008, fantasai wrote:
> 
> Of course most people using these elements won't be reading the spec. It 
> is quite likely that someone will assume <dialog> is the "correct" tag 
> to use for a CSS+JS dialog box.

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Scott Hess wrote:
> 
> They are reasonably unlikely to ship a web page that assumes that, 
> though.
> 
> People who don't read specs generally build web pages by copying and 
> pasting from other web pages.  They don't just think up random things 
> they'd like to see and try them out to see if they work.  So people 
> looking for a dialog box are going to be looking for an example with a 
> dialog box, which will _not_ reference the <dialog> element, so they 
> won't be particularly confused.  People looking for an example of how to 
> express back-and-forth dialogue will find a web page which does so, 
> which does use the <dialog> element, and they will also not be confused.  
> Or at least they won't be materially more or less confused than they 
> would be if the tag was <al> or something (al for "alternating list").

On Thu, 15 May 2008, Keryx Web wrote, regarding <discourse>:
> 
> Discourse is too general.
> 
> In philosophy and theology a discourse can mean "teaching", as in 
> "Levinas' discourse about 'the other' has made alterity a recurring 
> theme in all modern philosophy" or "pentecostal theology is defined by 
> its discourse about the charims".
> 
> I would not associate <discourse> with a spoken list-like dialog. That 
> would be way too narrow.

On Thu, 15 May 2008, Ernest Cline wrote:
> 
> 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.)

On Thu, 15 May 2008, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I'm backing off of that position...  I'm back to liking plain 
> <dialog> or <talk>.  Either sounds great to me.

Having considered everyone's opinion here, I've decided to stick with the 
original name, <dialog>. It has a few advantages: it starts with "d", so 
it works well with <dt> and <dd>. It doesn't end in "gue", so it hopefully 
avoids the problems that "language" had. It means the right thing.

I agree that the term is confusing with dialog boxes, however, nobody has 
made up the <dialog> element to mark up dialog boxes so far, so I see no 
reason for them to start. People who come across <dialog> are immediately 
going to see that it is for dialogue, so I don't see a problem here.



On Wed, 7 May 2008, fantasai wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Michel Fortin wrote:
> > > Here are some various potential use cases for <dialog> I've 
> > > collected and which I think are problematic with the way the 
> > > <dialog> element is currently defined.
> > > 
> > > Regular dialogue:
> > > 
> > > http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2007/03/26/070326sh_shouts_rich
> > 
> > We can do everything in that except the annnotations like 
> > "(laughing)". I'm not sure how to handle those.
> 
> Alternate voice: <i>.

The problem is where to put the <i>.


> On 4 April 2007 Michael Fortin wrote:
> > 
> > Indeed it could... in this case. Sometime however the time is 
> > indicated every 5, or 10 minutes to not overload the dialogue with 
> > time references, in which case associating the time reference with the 
> > speaker may not be the best thing to do. ...
> 
> Quite a few of the use cases you're having trouble with here would be 
> easily solved by allowing <p> inside <dialog>, parallel with <dt> and 
> <dd>. I think breaking the <dialog> for headings and sections makes 
> sense, but not for interjecting things like floating timestamps, /me 
> lines and other non-spoken active description.
>
> > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > > If I remember correctly <li> was suggested for this purpose on IRC. 
> > > The advantage of <li> over <p> would be that people wouldn't easily 
> > > think you could put anything inside <dialog> (as you put <p> almost 
> > > anywhere).
> > 
> > Anything but <dt> and <dd> is going to cause us headaches in the 
> > parser.
> 
> Is the problem with existing parsers or with the parsing algorithm?
> 
> <dialog>
>   <dt>Ray</dt>
>   <dd>Who are you?</dd>
>   <dt>Faye<dt>
>   <dd>The cookie girl.</dd>
>   <p>Faye offers Ray some cookies.</p>
>   <dt>Ray</dt>
>   <dd>Thanks.</dd>
> </dialog>
> 
> Opera, Safari, and Konqueror seem to handle the nesting just fine. IE 
> and Firefox have problems with it, but they're inconsistent: Firefox 
> ends the <dialog> (but doesn't end a <dl> in the same situation), IE 
> slurps the paragraph into the previous <dd>. Seems reasonable for the 
> parsing algorithm to adopt the Presto/WebKit/KHTML approach.

The problem is that the </dd> end tag is optional, and <p> doesn't imply 
it, so this:

 <dialog>
  <dt> Baker's Wife
    <dd> Why, come in, little girl.
  <dt> Little Red Ridinghood
    <dd> I wish... It's not for me, it's for my Granny in the woods.  A 
         loaf of bread, please.  To bring my poor old hungry Granny in the 
         woods. Just a loaf of bread, please.
 </dialog>

...works, but this:

 <dialog>
  <dt> Baker's Wife
    <dd> Why, come in, little girl.
  <p> Little Red Ridinghood enters the baker's shop.
  <dt> Little Red Ridinghood
    <dd> I wish... It's not for me, it's for my Granny in the woods.  A 
         loaf of bread, please.  To bring my poor old hungry Granny in the 
         woods. Just a loaf of bread, please.
 </dialog>

...suddenly doesn't, you need to add the </dd>. Which sucks.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'