[Bug 8404] Refocus the figure element back to being a figure

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8404





--- Comment #32 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2009-12-01 01:04:16 ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> 
> I wasn't happy with the use of iframe either. It was another idea.
> 
> Frankly, I'm thinking the best thing to do is to remove figure. It is too
> general to be useful semantically, and people will be confused when figures are
> used for material that is not graphical or an illustration. And there's nothing
> in the definition of figure that prevents non-illustrative material. 

Removing figure would best be expressed as a separate bug I think. Would you be
ok with closing this one, or do you still think restricting the content model
is a good approach?

That being said, I do think <figure> has semantic value. Specifically,
extracting a list of tables and figures is a common thing to do with a lengthy
illustrated document. Doing that by looking for <figure> and <table> elements
seems pretty handy. 

I do think the HTML5 spec should have normative text that <figure> is for
illustrative purposes (in the broad sense). This is the purpose of figures and
is one thing that distinguishes them from various kinds of asides.

> 
> You referenced Docbook earlier, but the definition for figure in Docbook is for
> illustrative purposes. If we don't restrict the elements to those compatible
> with illustrative purposes, then figure will be misused. People probably won't
> know when to use aside, and when to use figure. 

Print authors seem to know when to use a figure and when to use a sidebar or
pull quote. I don't think Web authors will do that much worse. I would guess
the most common use in the end will be for images, whatever the validator says.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 01:04:18 UTC