- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:39:20 +0200
- To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Bruce Lawson, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:23:20 +0100:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:12:42 +0100, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Another option would be to restrict figure to just images and forget
>>>> it as a grouping mechanism.
>>>
>>> That's unacceptable.
>> Maybe. Maybe not. I'm open to ways of clearing up the confusion and
>> ambiguity. That would be one way.
>
> I couldn't accept that; it's throwing the baby out with the bath
> water. I'd rather some ambiguity between aside and figure in edge
> cases than the inability to have a video or a data table as an
> illustrative figure.
May be what's needed is a body element inside <figure>.
If <figure> had a figure body element (why not simply use <article>?),
then it would be much clearer what the caption was captioning. Then the
grouping could be connected with the figure body element instead of
being connected with <figure>. While the <figure> element could be
labeled more properly/freely:
<figure role="img">
<article role="group">
<img src="a" ><img src="b" >
</article>
<summary>
Caption of the figure element, whose content is found in the figure
body element - <article>.
</summary>
</figure>
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 17:39:55 UTC