Re[2]: <FIG> implies <P>?

Rodney Barnett (RBarnett@us.teltech.com)
Fri, 14 Jul 95 07:29:01 cst


Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 07:29:01 cst
From: "Rodney Barnett" <RBarnett@us.teltech.com>
Message-Id: <9506148057.AA805732162@smtpgwy.gen.teltech.com>
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Subject: Re[2]: <FIG> implies <P>? 

In message <199507131625.MAA07293@beach.w3.org>, Daniel W. Connolly writes:
[snip]
>During the white-board discussion that Dave and I had, we discussed 
>this sort of thing, including the way FrameMaker allows you to 
>align figures all sorts of fancy ways with respect to the paragraph 
>in which they're anchored.
>
>We considered the possibility of expressing the above situation as:
>
> <p>The bond angle between the two oxygen-hydrogen 
> bonds in water is slightly larger than that 
> between two carbon-hydrogen bonds in methane
> (see <a href="fig1">figure 1</a>)<spot id=fig1anchor>.  This 
> is due to the two extra pairs of free electrons around the 
> oxygen atom, which take up more space than the bound 
> pairs.</p> 
>
> <fig src="molecules.jpg" id="fig1" align="right" at="fig1anchor"> 
> figure 1 shows models of CO2 and H2O molecules
> </fig>
>
>This way, the content models aren't changed: <FIG> is still a 
>peer of <P>. But the <spot> element allows the author to suggest 
>where the figure should be anchored in the paragraph.
>
>Do you think that would work?
>
>Dan

Why restrict this discussion to figures if <FIG> and <P> are peers?
Couldn't the mechanism above be generalized a little to allow textual
sidebars or embedded lists?  In other words, isn't this discussion really
about taking two separate elements and expressing a containment
relationship between them?

Rodney