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 18:44:08 +0200
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100608184408603753.aff873f9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Leif Halvard Silli, Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:40:05 +0200:
> Laura Carlson, Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:14:05 -0500:
>> Hi Leif

     snip  
>> 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. ;-)

Sorry. Out of time. I meant that if we were to base it on the 
Differences doc, then such a change was not needed.
-- 
lh
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:44:42 GMT

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