Re: <FIG> implies <P>?

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Wed, 12 Jul 1995 18:31:40 -0400


Message-Id: <199507122231.SAA03983@beach.w3.org>
To: Ka-Ping Yee <kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: Rainer Klute <klute@nads.de>, Mike Batchelor <mikebat@clark.net>,
Subject: Re: <FIG> implies <P>? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jul 1995 14:41:44 EDT."
             <Pine.3.87.9507121444.A26501-0100000@novice.uwaterloo.ca> 
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 18:31:40 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <Pine.3.87.9507121444.A26501-0100000@novice.uwaterloo.ca>, Ka-Ping Y
ee writes:
>
>It doesn't make sense to me that figures should break paragraphs.  This
>behaviour is disagreeable to me, and also makes <FIG> operate distinctly
>differently from <IMG> which it was supposed to replace.
>
>But i might just be missing the obvious.
>Is there a solid rationale for this?

I just had a discussion with Dave Raggett about this... <FIG> is
meant to compliment, not replace, <IMG>. There's a lot of history
behind the current spec. Some of it is technical, but some of it
is political stuff that I won't go into.

Suffice it to say that HTML 3.0, like many other markup languages,
includes two idioms for graphics: the <img> element for phrase-level
stuff, like little funny characters or inline icons (or inline
math formulas or ...) and <fig> for "displayed formulas" or graphic
callouts or ... .

The fact that the functionality of <img> doesn't include things
like client-side image maps and other consequences of using an ALT
attribute rather than content (e.g.

	<image src="xxx">alternative <em>nifty</em>stuff</image>

) is an unfortunate consequence of some historical decisions.

Dan