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 14:34:46 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912011234p362a44foaaa34e2b780f6732@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeroen van der Gun <noreplytopreventspam@blijbol.nl>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jeroen van der Gun
> <noreplytopreventspam@blijbol.nl> wrote:
>> The real question that needs to be asked is: are tables and images
>> fundamentally different? The answer is no. They are both objects in a
>> document.
>
> We have complete disagreement right from the start: tables and images
> are _not_ the same thing.

The intention was that images and tables are the same *in that
context*.  It is of course obvious that they are not the same in
general.  The next paragraph in Jeroen's email makes it clear what
context he is referring to.

> Folks are focusing on getting something to work -- caption with
> something else. If you all want to create a new element that is
> nothing more than a lump of HTML with a caption, what do we call a
> section? Or an article?
>
> Do we really need something else, too?

I don't understand what you mean.  Do you think that <section> and
<article> are some means of associating a caption with some content?
Or do you mean something else?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 20:35:22 UTC

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