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

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

From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:35:31 +0400
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <403381314570937@web127.yandex.ru>
I also am uncomfortable with FIGCAPTION and SUMMARY elements.

Considering CAPTION parsing specifics, maybe LABEL element could be used instead of CAPTION inside FIGURE, DETAILS, etc.

LABEL is just inline element that has no special "parsing rules" (unlike CAPTION).

Another solution is to allow CAPTION in place of FIGCAPTION and SUMMARY elements _simultaneously_, sothat FIGCAPTION and SUMMARY elements could be used _right now_, while CAPTION would be possible to be used in near future -- as browsers are updated.

P.S. It probably makes sense to file a bug -- this would simplify tracking the issue. You can do this here:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=HTML%20WG


26.08.2011, 08:17, "Andrew Fedoniouk" <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>:
> 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.
>
> --
> Andrew Fedoniouk.
>
> http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Sunday, 28 August 2011 22:36:12 GMT

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