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

Re: Bug 8404 -- taking it to the lists

From: Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:51:35 +0000
Message-ID: <ad9d9dc0912010851ue525c43l9f1cf7b6d00e50ed@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2009/12/1 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>:
>
> (I also note that many of the guides forbidding using a table as a
> figure are merely forbidding it from being *labeled* as a figure - I
> doubt they're requiring that they not be styled and treated otherwise
> as a figure.  Even in books that I own that do explicitly label
> table-figures as "Table 1.2" or what-have-you, the styling and meaning
> of the table is identical to that of other figures.)
>

How they are styled is a presentational matter, and therefore outside
the scope of HTML5. Considering a table to be a figure in a semantic
sense strikes me as either ignoring its existing semantics as a table,
or extending the semantics of a figure to be a generic container for
anything outside the normal flow of text. Even though a graphic
designer specifies the same fonts and so forth for the captioning of
both figures and tables, that doesn't make them semantically
equivalent.

YMMV :-)

Regards,

Nick.
-- 
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:52:17 UTC

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