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

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:35:56 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTilHadxvXmjRaLAMHceHO_xu6uOV-6t7aDxS54rz@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Bruce,

>> Hmmm. You said, "a video or a data table".  In the singular.  Is that
>> the key, Bruce? What do you think of restricting figure to a single
>> element as content to help simplify?
>
> No -

Shucks. Thought I was on to something.

Leif had recommended in the bug [1] that,

"I would suggest that <figure> can contain a single, un-wrapped
"forreign content" element (svg, mathml), or a single HTML media
element (audio, video, img, object, iframe) or <blockquote>. But no
<pre> or <p> etc, unless it is wrapped inside <object> (or <iframe>).
All these elements constitute their own sectioning root (see the HTML
5 draft, section 4.4.11, "Headings and sections" about sectioning
roots). (OK, there is no outline inside <img>, but there may be an
imaginary one.) The principle should be: figure can only contain an
element that can be said to constitute its own sectioning root."

What do you think of that?

> I think the example of one figure, multiple images in
> http://html5doctor.com/the-figure-figcaption-elements/ is legitimate

Sweet. It would be great to be able to do it that way but allowing any
flow content really adds to the complexity.

Guess we keep thinking about it. Maybe the definition should stress
more that figure is used for illustrative purposes...somehow try to
distinguish it from the aside element.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 20:36:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:09 GMT