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

Re: Bug 8404 -- taking it to the lists

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:45:32 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912010645iec4af1ag3fd05aa521163f8b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> What you did not prove anywhere, is that people will *not* have a
> difficult time understanding what <figure> is about.

It was not my intention to do so; I was merely trying to shoot down a
particular wrong justification I saw being bandied about.

That being said, I don't think people will have any trouble with it.
The spec is quite clear, and the definition of the element matches
extremely well with what we call "figures" in books and articles
today.  Tutorials should have an easy time explaining it, since they
can just point to a magazine article as an example of a figure.

> Shelley, as a solution, suggests refocusing <figure> to only allow
> graphics, media elements and foreign content (svg/math) and some more.

Indeed, and she used as justification a statement that figures are, in
common use, only used for captioning illustrations.  I showed that to
be trivially false; it is very common to put code and tables in
figures.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:46:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC