[Bug 21294] possible fix needed in <figure> specification?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21294

--- Comment #1 from Giorgio <giorgio.liscio@email.it> ---
yesterday i was very tired when i submitted this bug...
i will try to explain myself better

it is not clear (even in the newest specs) if <figure> creates an independent
flow, since it is a sectioning root, relative to the whole document or relative
to the closest ancestor sectioning element

on whatwg.org:

> The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code
> listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the document, but
> that could, without affecting the flow of the document [...]

the word "document" made me confused. because it seems that <figure> will be
always related to the main document section (<body>) independently by where it
is placed

is a correction needed here then? is <figure> relative to the main section
<body> or to the closest ancestor sectioning element?

also..

> [...] be moved away from that primary content e.g. to the side of the page,
> to dedicated pages, or to an appendix.

...that made me even more confused. i understood what the editor was saying
here but i think it's a bad example and in my "newbie" opinion should be
removed or fixed, 

because it is better to say instead
"to the side of the page but within the section/document"
"to an appendix but within the section/document"
and it is better to not say at all "to dedicated pages" because
it creates confusion

hoping to be helpful :)
(i'm sorry for my poor english)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 09:40:41 UTC