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

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:40:05 +0200
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100608184005650911.a2ffbf15@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Laura Carlson, Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:14:05 -0500:
> Hi Leif
> 
>>> How is that different from aside?
> 
>> Attempt on defining the difference:
>> 
>> <aside> cannot be moved to another context without loosing a lot of
>> its original meaning. If you loose the link to the context - in any
>> meaning of "link" - the <aside> stops functioning as an aside. Being
>> "tangentially related" it *is* related and dependent on to the context.
>> 
>> <figure>, while it can also "take up" meaning from the context in
>> which it is located, it may also be moved to another location and still
>> be meaningful in itself and on its own. Thus a <figure> can be dropped
>> into many different contexts and still be meaningful.
>> 
>> To better discern <figure> from <aside>,  how about *requiring*
>> <figure> to have a summary/caption? Because, the way I see it, unless a
>> <figure> has a caption, it is difficult to perceive it as an
>> independent entity suitable for more than one context.
> 
> Requiring a caption is a good idea, Leif. It is the one thing that
> distinguishes figure from aside.

I would like to know what those that have voted *for* <figure> would 
think about such a move. (Instead of name dropping, you know who you 
are.)

> The differences document [1] defines <figure>:
> 
> "figure can be used to associate a caption together with some embedded
> content, such as a graphic or video".
> 
> This is very generic.

Hah! The Differences document disagrees with HTML5! The Differences 
document considers <figure>'s purpose to be for *embedded content*! 
That idea does not appear in HTML5 itself, were it, as we know, has a 
much broader purpose. This is almost in tune with Shelley's original 
proposal for <figure>, where she suggested to limit it for adding 
captions to embedded content.

Anne, can you at make sure that the Difference is up to date with the 
spec facts about this?

> In light of this and  Jame's bug " Clarify that a figure can be any
> content with a caption" [1], how about renaming <figure> something
> like <content> or <embeddedcontent>. It would match the definition
> better. It would also disambiguate and avoid the conception from the
> print world (held many) that figure should be restricted to  image of
> some sort.
  
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/Overview.html#new-elements
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9876

I must think about this. But I think that if we were to use the 
Differences document as basis, then <figure> it is not needed. ;-)
-- 
leif h
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:40:40 GMT

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