Re: HTML3 and FIG

Ian S. Graham (igraham@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca)
Wed, 26 Apr 95 18:10:49 EDT


From: "Ian S. Graham" <igraham@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Message-Id: <199504262210.SAA12824@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: HTML3 and FIG 
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 18:10:49 EDT

 
FIG and IMG both seem sensible to me, particularly in the different 
contexts that you've mentioned below.  But -- I am a bit wary of 
arguments like:

" Paragraphs can't currently enclose a FIG element, but even if they could
  I still feel that breaking text lines across an image is bad practice"

as it seems more judgement than guiding principle..... ;-)

I've also expressed an interest in centred FIG (and/or IMG) elements, 
with attributes to control text flow around the object, etc.  Clearly
I don't see it necessarily as bad practice -- centre-aligned images are 
common as page decorations, and would be more effective with 
surrounding textflow.  Obviously there are many implementation problems
to consider, and clearly much of the details of image placement should
be left to a stylesheet, but I don't think the idea should be rejected 
out of hand.

Any other thoughts?

Ian

> > [Dave Raggett]
> 
> > But <IMG> can't have captions. Shouldn't <IMG> be phased out in favour
> > of the more general <FIG>? I think letting <IMG> have functionality
> > <FIG> lacks is a "design bug".
> 
> IMG occurs within paragraphs, while FIG is a peer of paragraphs.
> This choice should be a matter for debate though. Regardless of the
> outcome, I believe that IMG still has a useful role for small graphics
> that blend into the enclosing textline.
> ........ 
> 
> Paragraphs can't currently enclose a FIG element, but even if they could
> I still feel that breaking text lines across an image is bad practice.
> 
> The current specification seems a reasonable compromise between flexibility
> for authors and the degree of complexity for browser developers.