[Bug 8404] Refocus the figure element back to being a figure


--- Comment #51 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2009-12-01 13:31:21 ---
(In reply to comment #49)
> (In reply to comment #48)
> > (In reply to comment #47)
> > > (In reply to comment #45)
> > > > (In reply to comment #44)
> > > > > (In reply to comment #43)
> > > > > > (In reply to comment #38)

> > > In your example the footnotes are contained within what I would call "the
> > > content", as opposed to "the caption". That example seems fine by me, no
> > > objections (except that <object> means nothing and has plenty of parsing
> > > quirks, just use <div> instead).
> > 
> > I don't understand what you mean by <object> "means nothing". It clearly does. 
> > HTML 5 fails to say that it is a sectioning root. But it clearly is. Or else
> > screen readers would generate an outline that differs from the usual browsers.
> "The object element can represent an external resource, which, depending on the
> type of the resource, will either be treated as an image, as a nested browsing
> context, or as an external resource to be processed by a plugin." Pretty close
> to "nothing" in terms of semantics.
> But stating "it has no semantics" when your suggestion is "give in semantics X"
> is of course nonsense, I admit that. I don't think marking up the content
> rather than the caption makes much of a difference though.

I think my proposal about <object> is in line with HTML 4. If you try to
validate a page with the following code


then you get this validation message:

Line 12, Column 8: document type does not allow element "H2" here; missing one
of "OBJECT", "MAP", "BUTTON" start-tag

> > And to say out in the air that <object> has many parsing quirks is not helpful.
> > I am, in fact, not aware of any parsing bugs for <object> when it is used as a
> > wrapper. OK, of course, i IE6/IE7 there are bugs. But that's the same for
> > <figure><dt><dd></figure> - and the solution there was "use a div".  The
> > solution to IE6/IE7's problem with <object> is the same: Use a div - even a
> > span, depending on.
> If you think <object> is a good idea, take it to the list where more people can
> see it. I'll try to refrain from any discussing anything but the actual
> suggestion in this bug.

I believe that <object> is in line with that proposal, and that is why I
"jumped in" here about it. <object> literally *is* an element that collects
something into a figure. 

The actual suggestion of this bug is to refocus figure by only permitting
certain elements inside it, namely those elements which can be said to
represent something that can be justifyably be perceived as a  figure. Usually
<object> has been used to present some graphic to the graphical user agents,
while the "fallback" of the <object> has been presented a "the figure" for the
rest of the audience. But since the understanding - *today* - finally has
become that it is better, more accessible and more practical, to - as often as
possible - just show the mark-up to all audiences, instead of showing a graphic
to some and mark-up to some others, we can just "turn objeect upside down" and
present the "fallback" to all audiences. 

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 13:31:31 UTC