W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2009

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

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:53:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NFG3V-0005yx-2a@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8404





--- Comment #23 from Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>  2009-11-30 23:53:20 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > (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.
> > 
> 
> PS These tables are not treated as tables, they're are treated in the book as
> graphics. 
> 
> I think you all are mixing up representation with function here. 
> 
> And if you want to put tables into the content, you can. Use the table element.
> Leave figure for figures. 
> 
> Notice that in the two examples you referenced, that I refer to the figures as
> figures? But the few tables I used (I don't use a lot of tables in my books,
> they're a pain to format), I reference as Table...
> 

(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > (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.
> > 
> 
> 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.
> 

So we agree they are images of tables in a figure. I guess my question is why
should we be limited to using images of tables in figures rather then HTML
tables in figures?


-- 
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 23:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:05 UTC