- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:25:29 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
2007/7/18, Robert Burns:
>
> I wonder if this wording is a vestige of considering <caption> for
> <figure> elements (apparently rejected for <legend> because of some
> unspecified parsing issues).
Try this: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cstyle%3E%0Atable%20caption%20%7B%20color%3A%20red%3B%20%7D%0Atable%20td%20caption%20%7B%20color%3A%20green%3B%20%7D%0A%3C/style%3E%0A%3Ctable%3E%3Ctr%3E%3Ctd%3E%3Cfigure%3E%3Cimg%20src%3D%22image%22%20alt%3D%22cats%22%3E%3Ccaption%3EKittens%3C/caption%3E%3C/figure%3E%3C/td%3E%3C/tr%3E%3C/table%3E
i.e.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<style>
table caption { color: red; }
table td caption { color: green; }
</style>
<table><tr><td><figure><img src="image"
alt="cats"><caption>Kittens</caption></figure></td></tr></table>
Firefox 2 and Opera 9.21 move <caption> as a direct child of the <table>.
IE7 seems to imply cell, row and row-group end tags so that <caption>
is a direct child of <table>
--
Thomas Broyer
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 22:25:37 UTC