- From: Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:51:35 +0000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, 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>
2009/12/1 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>: > > (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.) > How they are styled is a presentational matter, and therefore outside the scope of HTML5. Considering a table to be a figure in a semantic sense strikes me as either ignoring its existing semantics as a table, or extending the semantics of a figure to be a generic container for anything outside the normal flow of text. Even though a graphic designer specifies the same fonts and so forth for the captioning of both figures and tables, that doesn't make them semantically equivalent. YMMV :-) Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:52:17 UTC