W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2011

Re: <caption>, <figcaption>, <seccaption>, <divcaption>, etc.

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:14:58 +0200
To: public-html@w3.org, "Andrew Fedoniouk" <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>, "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Message-ID: <op.v0tf28q2idj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:17:21 +0200, Andrew Fedoniouk  
<andrew.fedoniouk@live.com> wrote:

> Each time when I see <figcaption> I want to ask:
>
> What is conceptually wrong with using <caption> as it is in <figure>'s?  
> Why do we need element with such ugly name as <figure>?
> Why other grouping elements have no such caption counterparts?
>
> It is enough to define something like this:
>
> caption { display:block; }
> table > caption { display:table-caption; }
>
> in UA's default style sheet and we can use this element with its perfect  
> semantic meaning.
>
> My pardon if it was discussed already.

http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/1122

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 10:15:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:37 GMT