- From: Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:19:07 +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>: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk> wrote: >> 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. > Why should the specification only consider what visual designers want or will use? I can think of a number of scenarios where a granularity of classification much finer than that required for visual presentation is needed. Extracting data from HTML for incorporation in other resources, and meeting the needs of assistive technologies to present a summary of a document's structure, are two that spring immediately to mind. Negards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 17:19:41 UTC