[whatwg] The new content model for <details> breaks rendering in MSIE5-7
webmaster at keryx.se
Sun Oct 4 02:13:00 PDT 2009
2009-10-03 21:47, Tab Atkins Jr. skrev:
> Well, no amount of proof would do so; only a convincing enough
> argument. I, personally, do not feel that<dt>'s semantics change
> between<dl> and<details>. Nor do I feel they have different syntax
> at all -<dl> and<details> do have slightly different syntaxes, but
> it's very minor and pretty much bound up in the fact that<dl> has
> multiple name/value pairs while<details> has only one, so<details>
> doesn't *have* to worry about ordering in the same way that<dl> does.
In what way is the SYNTAX different? We seem to agree on this:
First and foremost, in <dl> the order is all important. Here it would
In <dl> one may have several <dd> for each <dt> (or several <dt>'s in a
row), here one may not.
You call this "minor", I say confusing. But we have in fact created a
new syntax - why is that better than creating new elements?
In what way is the SEMANTICS different?
> So, in my mind, <dt>/<dd> do *not* hold some special meaning that
> locks them into only ever being used in <dl>. <dt> is a heading
> element, nothing more, effectively equivalent to <h1>*.
Well, that is not what the SPEC says is it?
> I mean, would you complain about using <title> or <caption> or <label>
> or <legend>... in <details>?
Yes, I would.
I am arguing in favor of introducing a new element, which would be the
zero cost solution, since <details> is new anyway.
+ No hacks besides those that we already use to get details working as
such in legacy browsers.
+ When implementing details the browser vendors will not have a harder
time using a new element than they would using dt/dd.
+ We would keep the several meanings per element count down, which from
a teachability POV is more important than keeping the total number of
And from that POV nuances are often harder to pick up than anything else.
Keryx Web (Lars Gunther)
More information about the whatwg