W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2009

[whatwg] Figure Captions

From: tjeddo <tjeddo@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:45:26 -0700
Message-ID: <fc6666d10909271345t2ab19c8m976406cadcc7e61f@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you for the summary. I understand.  It seems unfortunate that
legacy compatibility should have such notable constraints on evolving
language.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, tjeddo <tjeddo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Would anyone mind summarizing the design rationale for choosing the 'dt'
>> element as opposed to a 'caption' element when specifying the caption of a
>> figure?
>>
>> Looking through the current draft of the HTML5 spec it appears that the
>> surrounding context of 'dt' element determines how the contents of 'dt' are
>> interpreted (e.g., dl, figure, details).
>> However, from a readability, and I guess aesthetic perspective, a <caption>
>> tag seems like the correct fit here.? A <caption> tag is more explicit in
>> terms of the intended semantics associated with a figure; whereas, <dt>
>> (defined term?) is more abstract (IMO).
>
> The goals were to 1) use an existing element that 2) existing browsers
> wouldn't mangle too horribly when they found it in an unexpected
> place. ?<legend> and <caption> are both effectively unusable outside
> their expected places in several major browsers right now -- they get
> eaten, reparented, or any number of other horrible things.
>
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 13:45:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:52 UTC