- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:08:12 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8404 --- Comment #26 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2009-12-01 00:08:11 --- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #19) > > > > > Gavin, those are images of tables, pulled into the book as either TIFs or PNGs. > > > > The data is not accessible as a table. > > > > If you all want to include JPEGs of tables in img elements, that's cool. You > > can put anything you want into an image file. > > I think it would be a terrible message to send if we tell HTML authors that the > only way to include text or tabular data in a figure is to turn it into an > image. Text on the Web should be marked up as text whenever possible, even if > it is serving a largely graphical purpose. Ditto for tabular data. Turning text > or tables into images is bad for accessibility, indexability, find-in-page > features, copy/paste. It's an anti-pattern. If restricting <figure> would have > this effect on HTML authoring then we absolutely should not do it. > I think it's equally bad to confuse people who are expecting to see illustrations or other graphical entities in a figure, but what's shown is a poem, a piece of code, an HTML table, and so on. What does figure mean? If its nothing more than a title slapped on to a piece of web behavior, then why bother creating the new element? Just use div, it has the same level of semantics. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 00:08:14 UTC