Re: CAPTION element for OBJECT?

Liam Quinn (
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:40:09 -0400

Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:40:09 -0400
From: Liam Quinn <>
Subject: Re: CAPTION element for OBJECT?
In-Reply-To: <v03102818afea4d17b84b@[]>


At 01:38 AM 10/07/97 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>At 2:32a -0400 07/10/97, Jim Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
> >
> > > It is not abuse, it is making do with what is available.
> > > It really is unfair of you to blame authors for HTML's shortcomings.
> > > Resourcefulness and creativity are human features, not bugs.
> >
> > Not when they prevent a much-needed standardization of a shared medium
> > such as HTML.
>Well, authors have to do *something* while they wait for better methods
>to be implemented in browsers. Do you expect people to boycott or not
>even create web pages because the desired tags have not yet been embraced
>by the browser vendors?
> > > Suggestion: replace "abuse" with "are forced to resort to using".
> >
> > Nonsense.  No one is forcing you to misuse HTML.  If you want pixel
>He calls it abuse, Abigail calls it abuse, you call it misuse -- what on
>earth is your problem with USING tables?

Don't get so worked up over the word "abuse".  I believe it's an "abuse" 
(or "misuse" if you prefer) of tables since it's not tabular data.  
Authors use tables as glue in search of a visual layout, and in doing so 
mislabel the structure of their document.  Of course, there are few viable 
alternatives because we don't have a CAPTION element, which IMO justifies 
authors' abuse of tables.

The point is that abuse can be justified, so we don't need to spend so 
much time arguing about this--we should be spending the time finding 
better solutions.

Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv


Liam Quinn
===============  ===============
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
======  PGP Key at  =====