- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:54:14 -0600
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Leif, > > You wrote to Tab [1]: > >> What you did not prove anywhere, is that people will *not* have a >> difficult time understanding what <figure> is about. > > I did a little bit of searching and found some definitions, style > guides, and examples. [snip giant list] Thanks for the research, Laura! Much appreciated. It seems somewhat odd that, despite all the styleguides implicitly forbidding using code in figures and explicitly forbidding tables in figures, that such uses are still as common as they are. This may indicate that it is in fact more natural to use figures in the broader sense that the spec currently defines, and that attempting to limit it to the definition implied by the styleguides would be counterproductive, as authors would just ignore it and use it as they see in current books and magazine articles. (I also note that many of the guides forbidding using a table as a figure are merely forbidding it from being *labeled* as a figure - I doubt they're requiring that they not be styled and treated otherwise as a figure. Even in books that I own that do explicitly label table-figures as "Table 1.2" or what-have-you, the styling and meaning of the table is identical to that of other figures.) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:54:47 UTC