W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > December 2009

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

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:00:52 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NFRPY-0004mR-9r@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8404





--- Comment #47 from Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  2009-12-01 12:00:51 ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> (In reply to comment #44)
> > (In reply to comment #43)
> > > (In reply to comment #38)
> > > > Here is another example of a table as a figure, this time with real data, not
> > > > fake data meant for illustrative purposes:
> > > > http://books.google.com/books?id=QbdMOM89qv0C&lpg=PA555&dq=%22table%20in%20figure%22&lr=&pg=PA556#v=onepage&q=%22table%20in%20figure%22&f=false
> > > > 
> > > > I can produce literally tens of examples of these without trying.  This is
> > > > *precisely* the usage as currently defined in the spec.
> > > 
> > > And where do you place the footnotes of that table, so that it fits with what
> > > is currently defined in the spec?
> > 
> > <figure>
> >   <table>...</table>
> >   <p caption>Figure 1: an illustrative table with content you can copy because
> > the HTML5 spec [1] is so nice as to allow it inside &lt;figure></p>
> >   <a class="reference" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/">[1]</a><br>
> >   <small>&copy; Santa Clause. No rights reserved.</small>
> > </figure>
> > 
> > Yes, I also disagree with the use of dd/dt. I'm not sure we should allow
> > footnotes and other non-content, non-caption markup inside <figure>, but it's
> > not terribly difficult to do if we want it. Perhaps we should mandate that it
> > be marked up with <small>/<aside>/whatever to make it unambiguous which part is
> > the main content.
> > 
> > The concrete proposal in this bug (to either scrap <figure> or limit it to some
> > specific elements) makes little sense, so close this and open new bugs (or
> > write mail) for other concrete proposals.
> 
> (Please note that I meant the footnotes that are visible in the Google books
> example. They appear just below the table. And the figure caption text appears
> below those again.)
> 
> I think the current proposal - which relies on <dt> and <dd> - has an important
> point (hey, it was I who proposed <dt> and <dd>): It _isn't_ the <table> that
> is being captioned, but the unity of table and footnotes to the table.
> 
> When you ask if we should permit "footnotes and other non-content, non-caption
> markup inside <figure>", then you are actually on the same train as Shelley.
> 
> The only truly unambigous thing to do if we want to make it unanmbiguous "which
> part is the main content" is to stuff table and footones inside a unifying
> "content element". If the footnotes are not labeled by the caption, then they
> have nothing to do inside the figure.
> 

In your example the footnotes are contained within what I would call "the
content", as opposed to "the caption". That example seems fine by me, no
objections (except that <object> means nothing and has plenty of parsing
quirks, just use <div> instead).

If dd/dt sticks, there is no ambiguity. Otherwise, anything not marked up as
the caption is the content. The issue with my example is that it also has some
license information which is neither content or not caption. I don't know if
it's a good idea and this is certainly not the place to discuss it.


-- 
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 12:00:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:42 UTC