- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:03:17 +0000
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: >>>> > > > >>>> > > > or make the association implicit by using the for attribute >>>> > > > <embed id="funnyVid" ...> >>>> > > > <caption for="funnyVid">A funny video of a man being hit in the groin by a >>>> > > > football</caption> >> > >> > That would work for the current page layouts of YouTube and Google Video. >> > >>> > > I think what would work best for this is the <figure> element I've proposed >>> > > back in june: >>> > > >>> > > <figure> >>> > > <caption>Some caption here</caption> >>> > > ... >>> > > </figure> >>> > > ... >> > >> > That would not. (At least, not without some tricky CSS.) > > Could you elaborate on that? I don't really understand why you think that. > Unless you mean just because of the order, but we could easily just allow > the caption to go at the end of the <figure> element. Possibly because, on YouTube, at least, the caption is in a column next to the video. It's not obvious how to make that work in the current model. >> I suggest that this element behave in the opposite way from alt=: >> > whereas alt= should be presented only if the image itself is *not* >> > presented, the caption element should be presented only if the image >> > itself *is* presented. Otherwise there would be the same problem with >> > non-sequiturs in non-visual media as there is with descriptive alt=. > > Agreed; spec now requires this. Not sure how to make this jive with the > idea of allowing <pre>/<ol>/etc, though; see above. I think I disagree; I'm not sure what we gain by hiding the caption and often I can imagine it being positively useful even without the image. -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 03:03:17 UTC