W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > June 2010

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:39:20 +0200
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100607193920666449.c75aa766@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Bruce Lawson, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:23:20 +0100:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:12:42 +0100, Laura Carlson 
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> Another option would be to restrict figure to just images and forget
>>>> it as a grouping mechanism.
>>> 
>>> That's unacceptable.
>> Maybe. Maybe not. I'm open to ways of clearing up the confusion and
>> ambiguity. That would be one way.
> 
> I couldn't accept that; it's throwing the baby out with the bath 
> water. I'd rather some ambiguity between aside and figure in edge 
> cases than the inability to have a video or a data table as an 
> illustrative figure.

May be what's needed is a body element inside <figure>.

If <figure> had a figure body element (why not simply use <article>?), 
then it would be much clearer what the caption was captioning. Then the 
grouping could be connected with the figure body element instead of 
being connected with <figure>. While the <figure> element could be 
labeled more properly/freely:

<figure role="img">
  <article role="group">
   <img src="a" ><img src="b" >
  </article>
  <summary>
    Caption of the figure element, whose content is found in the figure 
body element - <article>.
  </summary>
</figure>
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 17:39:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:12 GMT