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: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:53:20 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912021353v6c8b9db7xf749610e022ad923@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Jeroen van der Gun <noreplytopreventspam@blijbol.nl>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> The spec clearly says that <figure> is not meant for *all* annotated
> "illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings" either. But only for
> those that hypothetically could have been removed from the document
> without affecting "the flow of the document". If the text says "See
> this figure: [figure]", then that is not hypothetically possible,
> unless you also add a second hypothesis: "... if the text had
> hypothetically been rewritten" ...

No, it says that <figure "can thus be used" for such things.  It is
not saying "can only be used" or similar.  It's presenting a usage
example to ground the previous definition in reality and make it easy
to understand.

> Btw, not many e-mail message ago, you used "could be moved away" as
> proof that you had found examples that constituted a figure: [1]
> ]]
> 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.
> [[

Indeed.  I don't believe I've contradicted myself; at no point did I
indicate that this was the *only* criterion for <figure>.  As I said
in my previous message, it's a *common* attribute shared by
<figure>-appropriate content, not a require one.

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:53:56 UTC

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