W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2011

[Bug 14522] Why does <table> have <caption> but <figure> have <figcaption> ? They can both just use <caption> instead! Gets rid of unnecessary superfluous elements that just introduce additional complexity.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:12:02 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RGpbW-0002PI-3N@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14522

Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #1 from Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> 2011-10-20 10:12:01 UTC ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: <caption> has parsing constraints such that you wouldn't be able to
use <figure> inside a table if it used <caption>. There was a WG decision on
the name "figcaption".

-- 
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 Thursday, 20 October 2011 10:12:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:06 UTC