- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:15:20 -0600
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Ennals, Robert" <robert.ennals@intel.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:18:10 -0600, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote: > >> There's nothing stopping us from making attributes affect the >> semantics of an element. In fact, we do so right now, with <time >> pubdate>. That is also my preferred solution to the <figure> issue - >> I'd like to see a @caption attribute that can be added to any child of >> <figure>. > > If there is nothing stopping us, then why didn't you instead propose an > attribute for the <caption> element that could permit it to be used > also outside <table>? Because that won't do anything to solve the problem. We're not prevented from reusing <caption> because of semantics, we're prevented from reusing it because most/all current and past implementations treat <caption> outside of <table> in such a way that it's completely unusable for <figure>. Putting an attribute on it won't change this. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 22 November 2009 05:16:12 UTC