Re: text on graphics?

Abigail (
Sat, 11 May 1996 05:09:25 +0200 (MET DST)

From: Abigail <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: text on graphics?
To: (Marcus E. Hennecke)
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 05:09:25 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Marcus E. Hennecke" at May 10, 96 06:00:04 pm

Marcus E. Hennecke wrote:
++ On Fri, 10 May 1996 17:34:59 -0700, (Walter Ian Kaye) wrote:
++ > At 11:43p 05/10/96, Abigail wrote:
++ > >You, Melt van Schoor wrote:
++ > >++ I'm wondering if anyone have ever thought about adding something to HTML
++ > >++ that would allow me to place a specific graphic BENEATH a specific object or
++ > >++ part of a document?
++ > >You could also (mis)use a table.
++ First of all, I should note that Abigail and Melt were probably talking
++ about two different things. I think Abigail was talking about captions
++ rather than background graphics.

Yes, some time after I wrote my note I realized that as well.
(But it's still a pity <caption> is missing in the <object> element).

++ > Mis-use? Since when is resourcefulness a bad thing?
++ It is not of course. However, you have to be sure to distinguish between
++ actual resources and certain browser features. I would call it a mis-use
++ if it would in any way limit my audience. This may happen if I mark
++ something up as a table when in fact it is not.
++ > The hallmark of a cool
++ > application is when users can make it do things which the developers never
++ > dreamed of.

Most of the time, <table> is just used to layout the web page. This
works quite well when using a graphical browser. However, if the
user (= reader) does something the developer (= author) has never
dreamed off (say, using a sound browser), things can lead to sillyness.
<table>s were designed for tabular data.  If they are misused to force
a graphical layout, one limits his/her audience.