Re: <FIG> implies <P>?

Jon Wallis (jw@scitsc.wlv.ac.uk)
Thu, 13 Jul 1995 07:51:11 +0100


Message-Id: <m0sWI74-0007iPC@scitsc.wlv.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 07:51:11 +0100
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
From: jw@scitsc.wlv.ac.uk (Jon Wallis)
Subject: RE: <FIG> implies <P>? 
Cc: Ron Marriage <rmarriag@dialin.ind.net>

>The FIG tag is a paragraph tag itself.
>It implys the content is a paragraph on its own.
>It cannot go into another paragragh like the IMG tag can.

Yes, but *why*.   There's no logical reason at all why a figure should
be a separate paragraph. Wouldn't it be far better to _not_ have
fig as an implicit paragraph and allow authors to explicitly
denote a fig (ie.,within <p></p> ) if the semnatics of their document 
demand it.

It seems best to keep entities as (logically) simple as possible
and not place (il)logical constraints on them that can't be rolled back
later.  Or as William of Ockam had it: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
necessitatem".

regards
--
Jon Wallis         Senior Lecturer in Information Systems Engineering
School of Computing & I.T., University of Wolverhampton, UK - WV1 1SB
Tel/Fax +44 (0)1902 322203/322680   http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1906
------------Opinions are mine, not those of my employer--------------