W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Bug 8404 -- taking it to the lists

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:47:05 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20091201174705804889.662e00e9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tab Atkins Jr., Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:54:14 -0600:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Laura Carlson:
>> 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.)

I think the question is whether <figure> is a suitable common 
denominator for content ]]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[[.

I was confused when you insisted that a table can be referred to as a 
figure. And, if <figure> remains, then it should not be *labeled* as a 
figure, whenever it actually wraps around a <table> ... We should not 
go for "<figure>" if it can lead to more such concept clashes. And it 
could be tempting to use your line of argumentation as proof of the 
problem. ;-)

The denominator that cover the broadest seems to be "caption", and not 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:47:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC