Re: Bug 8404 -- taking it to the lists

Tab Atkins Jr., Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:02:46 -0600:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Shelley Powers  wrote:
>> And I can probably bring in another couple hundred references in
>> addition to the above and Laura's, all describing tables and figures
>> as two different things. AND, where it makes sense to the field,
>> examples and equations are listed as a third item.
> 
> As I said in regards to Laura's list, this is not the correct
> conclusion to draw.  When looking at the full context, it seems clear
> that the discrimination between "figures" and "tables" is in name
> only.  They are recommending not *labeling* tables as figures.
> However, in actual usage, tables and figures are very often presented
> identically.

So then we should focus more on the labeling problem than on the 
structure.

> Thus those injunctions should be taken, at most, as guidelines for
> what to use in the caption of the <figure> element.  The stylistic
> nature of the tables and figures indicates that they would be best
> served by a single element.

I bet that if there existed a common caption element that could be used 
with all relevant elements, then we would not be having this discussion.

The problem is that <figure>, the way it is defined in the HTML 5 
draft, is *more* than the structure: it must also be possible to refer 
to it outside of the context.

Jeroen mentioned <figurestructure> as a possible alternative - but too 
long (he said) - name of this element. I would say that <structure> 
would be a better name. Then it could also be used for stuff that isn't 
possible to remove from "without affecting the flow of the document". 

PS: <figure> appears in HTML 5 under section 4.8 "Embedded content". 
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 19:15:02 UTC