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

Re: ISSUE-128 (figure-in-p): Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:10:50 -0700
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <813CDD02-C50E-4B64-9909-913266291212@gbiv.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Oct 5, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> 
>> The current draft of the Change Proposal is at
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/FigureInP
> 
> I volunteer to write a counter-proposal, the first draft of which is 
> below. I welcome feedback both from people who agree with this position, 
> and wish to make the arguments presented below stronger, and from people 
> who disagree with this position, and who can explain why I am wrong.
> 
> 
> SUMMARY
> =======
> 
> It is argued that <figure> is equivalent to <p> or <aside> and should
> be treated as such, including being consistent in parsing.

I agree.  It would be very hard to explain the proper use of figure as an
element name if it does not have the same characteristics of a figure
in traditional written works.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 19:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:20 UTC