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

Re: Bug 8404 -- taking it to the lists

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:07:19 -0800
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0ECBC3C6-8C18-418D-85BE-91B35D52A652@apple.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Dec 1, 2009, at 6:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>
> As I stated on the bug, this last paragraph is false.  I provided
> three examples directly from Google Books results, obtained after a
> bare minimum of searching, of both code and tables.  A good 15 minutes
> of effort would have provided tens of more examples.  I also made
> reference to the first coding book I pulled off of my shelf, which is
> full of dozens of code figures (not illustrative, actual code) and
> literally hundreds of table figures (again, where the contents are not
> just illustrative, but are actually necessary for understanding the
> text that refers to it).  In all of these cases the figures match
> exactly with what the spec says - they are part of the document, but
> could be moved away, perhaps into an appendix, without affecting the
> meaning or flow of the document.

I also found numerous examples of figures explicitly marked as such  
and containing tables, code samples, lists, multiple images or tables  
individually captioned, and so forth, in the books and academic papers  
I had lying around. If the content model of <figure> is restricted as  
Shelley suggests, then it will be unsuitable to contain the kinds of  
content that writers actually put in figures. The suggested  
workarounds of converting tables or text in a <figure> to an image or  
putting it in a separate document in an <iframe> seem clearly bad to me.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 19:08:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:52 GMT