- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:11:39 -0500
- To: "Gunderson, Jon R" <jongund@illinois.edu>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Hi Jon,
Your proposal sounds a lot like the <figure> element, with the exception
that figure does not behave like details/summary.
The content of figures is fairly open ended. They can contain
illustrations, code listings, SVG, a table of photos, and so on.
The 5.1 TR spec:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/semantics.html#the-figure-element
MDN has some examples:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/figure
If you wanted the details/summary effect, you could wrap the entire
figure in a <details> element.
On 2015-11-13 9:42 AM, Gunderson, Jon R wrote:
>
> Charles and Steve,
>
> If we want native semantics let’s ask the HTML5 working group to
> modify the IMG element to allow the IMG element to act like
> SUMMARY/DETAILS elements.
>
> If an IMG element can be a container for other content (e.g. including
> iframes to shared long descriptions) then the markup becomes much
> simpler and testable by evaluation tools. All this talk about
> creating links and flowto’s is going to be very prone to errors and
> just plain being overlooked.
>
> If the IMG element contains content it would get the same “twisty” the
> SUMMARY/DETAILS elements get if the IMG element contains any content.
>
> <img scr=”my-imag.png” alt=”short description of image”>
>
> Long description of image …. Including tables and iframes
>
> </img>
>
> This approach makes it easier for everyone, but especially authors.
>
> Jon
>
--
;;;;joseph.
'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
- G. Bernhardt -
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 15:12:15 UTC