W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2010

[Bug 9631] Change name of <figcaption> to <summary>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 06:46:44 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OVIyS-0005ZU-Hm@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9631





--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-07-04 06:46:44 ---
Reply to comment #3. 

Is there anyway to get the bug to be resolved faster? Currently we see that the
editor prefers to work on "HTML6" (e.g. in the form of WebSRT) rather than
resolving HTML5 bugs - at least, that is the impression I get. 

It also seems important that HTML5 book authors, and other "implementors" are
aware that the <figcaption> name is contested. So could we mark it as a
contested issue in the spec? 

Regarding Issue-83, then that was an issue that Shelley raised because she
disagreed with the solution to reuse <dt> as caption element inside
<details>&<figure>. (The issue was also about _not_ using <dd> as container
element in <details>&<figure>) The issue was solved via an amicable solution
(which I disagreed with - I expressed the view that both elements should have
the same name in my comment - I am sorry to not have repeated it when you
called for objections. 

Here is on of my comments:
http://www.w3.org/mid/20100126015859583799.762f5ee2@xn--mlform-iua.no

]] I only see that <details> needs a caption. And if <summary> is marketed 
as a neutral caption element (that is: if it is used both in <figure> 
and <details>) _then_ I think it /could/ work, also for <details>. 
Because then its use in <figure> might spill over positively to 
<detail> and vice-versa. [[

So, from my perspective, the amicable solution did solve the specific issue
that Shelley raised. The solution did, however, create a new issue: two
different caption names.

I have not observed that the question of using <summary> as the caption element
of both  <details>&<figure> have been given any consideration. No one has
chosen to argue whether for or against my proposal to use <summary> for both
elements, as far as I can see.

Specifically, no one has justified that <summary> has any special link to
<details> in contrast to <figure>. In fact, I find it better fit to <figure>.
But, in my view, the element would understood the best if it is used as caption
element for both <figure>&<details>.

Right now we are solving another issue, ISSUE-30, where bad design, including
bad choice of name for the attribute (see Tantec's response in the poll) is
cited as one of hte problems with @longdesc. So clearly, the name  is important
and part of the design.

-- 
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 Sunday, 4 July 2010 06:46:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC