Re: <FIG> implies <P>?

Wilfredo Sanchez Jr. (
Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:49:15 -0400

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:49:15 -0400
From: "Wilfredo Sanchez Jr." <>
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <> (
Subject: Re: <FIG> implies <P>?

| 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 ... .

I find this somewhat unneccessary. By implicitly breaking a paragraph
with <fig>, one has made some useful features impossible, such as
Mike's example:

| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| xxxx +----------+ xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx +----------+ xxxxxxx
| xxxx   caption    xxxxxxx
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Therefore, then, it seems we want <img> to be able to have

Basically, I don't see the need for two idioms, when <fig> can cover
all grounds. Besides, any difference between "displayed" and "inlined"
figures could be an attribute if they make for a really useful

| 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 is an unfortunate consequence of some
| historical decisions.

And should be corrected, while we have the opportunity.

	 Agora Technology Group, Inc.	MIT Integrated Studies Program