W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:28:50 +0000
Message-ID: <20100114202850.pxv6menk00gww4oc@staff.opera.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Quoting Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>:

> C) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the
> caption for <details>. No special body elements. [Submitted by Maciej
> Stachowiak]

FWIW I like this proposal but I prefer the name <figcaption> to  
<fcaption>. I believe it is more obvious what the purpose of the  
element is (fig. is a common abbreviation for figure) which is  
particularly important as there is already a <caption> element in HTML  
that cannot be used within a <figure> element. Although it doesn't  
follow the design pattern of <thead> and <tbody>, these are rarely  
used elements and as such should not set a strong precedent. It is  
closer to <optgroup> in form. Although <figcaption> is slightly longer  
than <fcaption> it is not likely to be used so often that brevity  
should trump readability (as is the case for e.g. <td> or <p>).

Am I expected to write this up as a separate change proposal? Does  
anyone else agree that it is a worthwhile idea?
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 20:29:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT