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


--- Comment #17 from Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>  2009-11-30 23:27:16 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I would expect a <figure> to be able to contain a <table> instead of an image.
> > They may be labeled differently, but in scientific literature tables are
> > presented in exactly the same way as graphics; both will be numbered, both may
> > have a long explanatory caption, etc. It is overkill to require two entirely
> > different markup structures in order to represent the same structure with one
> > case applying to graphics and the other to tables when the two cases are easily
> > distinguished based on the actual content. 
> > 
> Perhaps because of my experience writing tech books, but tables are usually
> references as Table 1, Table 2, while code examples are Example 1, and figures
> are Figure 1 and Figure 2, and so on. I didn't think that scientific
> publications were that different. At least not the ones I can recall.

On page 84 of Practical RDF, there are three tables in a figure. Now I admit
they are reasonably graphical tables, but could be done using HTML tables and
CSS or easily as SVG or a PNG.

On page 381 of Painting the Web there is a chart/table of web safe colors in a
Figure (9-21). It would be reasonable to represent this as either a table or
svg, or img in HTML. Page 386 has another Figure (9-25) Font compatibility
table from AMPSoft. 

I'd agree that figures are more graphical in nature then an aside, or a table.
But that doesn't mean that the graphical representation can't be partially
tabular or textual.

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 Monday, 30 November 2009 23:27:25 UTC