- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:02:18 -0600
- To: Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk>
- 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>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk> wrote: > 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. Indeed, but in traditional publishing styling is generally an indication of semantics. > 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. That's precisely what the spec currently defines <figure> as (well, not for *anything* outside the flow - it still has to be a *part of the document*; things that are only tangentially related and can be removed entirely without changing the meaning of the document are <aside>s). > 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. True, it's not an automatic equivalence. It is, however, a strong indication of such. It also indicates that slicing the semantics any thinner than that may be counterproductive - if designers aren't currently making any effective distinction between them, what makes you think they *want* to make such a distinction in HTML? Styling is often a *very* good indication of the granularity of classification for the average person, and it's a mistake to go strongly against this unless there are strong technical reasons for doing so. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:02:51 UTC