- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:27:16 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8404 --- 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