- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:44:47 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7056 --- Comment #6 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-03-14 15:44:46 --- (In reply to comment #5) > I don't understand why this was reopened. The <caption> element was in fact > changed to allow any flow content. Are you saying that it shouldn't allow flow > content? Or do you think the change was wrong in some way? If we allow <caption> to contain non-caption content, then it isn't a caption anymore. I have protested against Ian's permision to have non-caption content inside the <caption> since day one. The purpose of the caption is to idenify the table. Ian's caption example in the draft shows that the only way to discern between what is the identifying part of the <caption> from the "table information part" of the <caption>, is to perform a heuristic analysis. Ian's solution to allow block elements inside <caption> came about as a reaction to the summary discussion. I challenged him to say that if he remove @summary, then he must provide something else. And he provided this. So there is a very direct link between @sumamry and <caption>. I don't understand the difference between your last two questions. But yes, I say that <caption> should not allow flow content. A <tableinfo> element would be a little bit like the <object> element: It would be a inline element which allows block elements inside. (I say 'block' instead of 'flow', because I have a very blurred picture of what 'flow' means, in HTML5 sense.) -- 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, 14 March 2010 15:44:48 UTC