- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:38:42 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr., Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:45:32 -0600: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Leif Halvard Silli: >> What you did not prove anywhere, is that people will *not* have a >> difficult time understanding what <figure> is about. > > It was not my intention to do so; I was merely trying to shoot down a > particular wrong justification I saw being bandied about. > > That being said, I don't think people will have any trouble with it. > The spec is quite clear, and the definition of the element matches > extremely well with what we call "figures" in books and articles > today. Tutorials should have an easy time explaining it, since they > can just point to a magazine article as an example of a figure. > >> Shelley, as a solution, suggests refocusing <figure> to only allow >> graphics, media elements and foreign content (svg/math) and some more. > > Indeed, and she used as justification a statement that figures are, in > common use, only used for captioning illustrations. I showed that to > be trivially false; it is very common to put code and tables in > figures. The justification I quoted - in her last paragraph (which you pointed out) - was related to what authors would be able to understand - how easily and so on. To use a table as a "figure" is advanced use. Advanced uses will be able to do it. But if figure in itself is advanced, then it will not be used for simple things, like image captions - which is one of the elements that actually could need a caption: http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/figures -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:39:22 UTC