- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:06:05 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Nick Fitzsimons <nick@nickfitz.co.uk>, 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>
Tab Atkins Jr., Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:26:30 -0600: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Nick Fitzsimons wrote: >> 2009/12/1 Tab Atkins Jr.: >>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Nick Fitzsimons : >>>> 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? I think we have good evidence for that designers differentiate tables, figures and examples - to again hint to the Java book I mentioned. The common denominator in all these cases, however is the very caption - /that/ one ought to be the same for all elements, if possible. >>> 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. That they all are styled the same way with regard to their caption, is perhaps a sign that we can make a broad classification for captions. >> >> Why should the specification only consider what visual designers want >> or will use? > > They shouldn't *only* consider such things. But the needs of visual > designers are very important, [ snip snip snip] I am not sure how exactly <figure> (rather than what?) particular help to visual designers. But I am also not sure what concrete Nick had in mind with his hint about finer granulation. >> 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. > > Sure, in some cases it is indeed required. In most cases it is not, > and one should always *endeavor* to make any distinctions obvious, > hopefully in a visual manner, to maximize the chances that they'll be > used correctly. One could claim that <figure> is too much granularity. As Nick said, it means that authors must rethink what a caption is. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 18:06:42 UTC