- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:45:22 -0600
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
I forgot to add the link to the bug: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8404 On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > Bug 8404 reads as follows: > > Currently the HTML5 specification has an overly broad definition about what can > be allowed in a figure element: > > "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, be moved away from that > primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated pages, or to an > appendix." > > This is counter to understandings about figure in other businesses and > environments, where figures are a graphic of some form. In addition, this > provides a confusing parallel in functionality between figure and aside, enough > so that people are going to have a difficult time knowing which is which, and > when to use one over the other. In fact, with this parallelism, we don't need > both. > > All assumptions I have read on figure is people assume the element will contain > a reference to an image of some form and a caption. Yet caption is optional, > and it sounds like anything can be included in figure. Your examples show a > poem, a code block, in addition to an image. > > The figure element either should be pulled completely, in favor of the aside > element, or it needs to have a tighter focus in its definition. It should > consist of a graphic element, which could be an svg element, a mathml element, > an img, an object, or, possibly, a video. It should then have one other > element, which will be the caption. Since this element won't be a svg, mathml, > img, object, or video element, it could be anything, including just a regular > paragraph. In fact, a regular element styled using CSS would be the best > option. > > This change would remove any confusion about this element, and there will be > confusion. It would also eliminate the problem with having to create a special > caption element, just for figure, as discussed in Issue 83. > > -- > > After comments regarding ASCII art, I also added pre as an allowable > graphics element. > > I've been told to take this bug to the lists for discussion. Here it is. > > I stand by the wording in this bug. I think that in HTML5, we should > restrict the elements allowed in figure to those that are purely > illustrative in nature, rather than allowing any form of HTML, and > that includes tables. By restricting the types of elements allowed, we > remove the need to repurpose dt/dd in figure, without having to add a > new element. > > Others disagree. We will see if the editor agrees or not. If he > doesn't agree with me, and marks this as WONTFIX, then I'll write a > more formal change proposal, or I'll pursue a different bug, such as > to remove figure altogether. > > Shelley >
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:45:57 UTC