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

Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:23:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4B5E2805.5070503@lachy.id.au>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> (1) If we cannot have just *one* caption element, then we should have
> just one *naming convention*. For example, both elements could contain
> the word 'caption' -<fcaption>  and<dcaption>. I consider this the
> only option if we look for two elements. If we go for<fcaption>  and
> <dlabel>, then authors will look in vain for any symmetry. The
> <fcaption>  vs<summary>  already breaks the principle of
> one-naming-convention very badly ... !

Why?  The figure and details elements are not really related in any way. 
They only have a superficial relationship because they once both used 
the legend element, and currently both use dt/dd, and that's only 
because of the attempt to reuse existing elements.  Otherwise, they are 
semantically different and there is no reason they need to use the same 
element, nor even use elements with similar names.  It seems better to 
pick element names based solely on their intended semantics, and judged 
based on their own merits, rather than trying to impose any artificial 
restrictions, like having the names share a common word.

Also, even if we do use a summary element for details, that doesn't rule 
out using it for table if we really want to do that (I'm not taking a 
position either way on that issue for the moment).  Both would provide a 
summary for their associated content.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 23:24:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC