W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Bug 8404 -- taking it to the lists

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 22:12:33 +0100
To: Jeroen van der Gun <noreplytopreventspam@blijbol.nl>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091202221233117088.699c148e@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Jeroen van der Gun, Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:34:12 +0100:
> May I suggest to use the dfn element to mark the figure number? It
> seems to be perfect for the job:
> <figure id="firstemo">
> <dd><pre>:)</pre></dd>
> <dt><dfn>Figure 3.</dfn> The first emoticon.</dt>
> </figure>
> <p>A colon and a closing parenthesis formed the first smiley,
> as shown in <a href="#firstemo">Figure 3</a>.</p>

I think you have a point w.r.t. to use of <dfn> - this would be a good 
advice for how to use the table <caption> as well. Good thought.

But, this way we get closer and closer to how the HTML 5 draft 
recommends that we use <dfn> in connection with <dl> lists. 

It seems to me, though, that in order to be certain that it is a 
"figure reference" and not a definition that is meant, it would be nice 
to have something that can be clearly identified as a caption element.

> Note that I don't think this dfn should be required; in informal
> contexts the figure element should also be usable.

So you are after the structure, primarily? But then the draft should 
remove the text that says that it must be possible to move the figure 
to an appendix etc without affecting the flow content. Then we are, 
however, moving further away from what a figure is - or is conceived to 

> I don't think the semantic that figures are movable is a problem.
> Because we agreed that all figures should have a caption, the caption
> forms the bridge between the figure content
> (table/image/equation/etc.) and the text. Defining figures to be
> movable enhances the accessibility of the document (e.g. screen
> readers could skip them until they are referenced and the user wants
> to follow that reference (moving unreferenced figures to the end of
> the section or article)).
> As an example, the following is wrong:
> <p>See this photo:</p>
> <figure>
> <dd><img src="photo.jpg" title="Photo" /></dd>
> <dt>A photo of my dog in the garden.</dt>
> </figure>
> It should be replaced with either:
> <p>See this photo of my dog in the garden:</p>
> <p><img src="photo.jpg" title="Photo" /></p>

It surprises me that you did not at least place the caption text of the 
<figure> inside the @alt text of the <img>.

Otherwise, this example demonstrates the problem: As soon as you it for 
some - draconian - reason can't be defined a figure, you suddenly can't 
have a caption anymore ... That is illogical. Didn't you care most 
about the structure?
> Or:
> <p>See the attached photo.</p>
> <figure>
> <dd><img src="photo.jpg" title="Photo" /></dd>
> <dt>A photo of my dog in the garden.</dt>
> </figure>
> Because in the original situation the photo is inline content that
> cannot be moved away. The same would apply if the it were a table
> element instead of an img element.

I don't understand what you mean by "in the original situation". The 
book? Otherwise, I think that inline images are just as much in need of 
captions as paragraph level images/figures. I also do not understand 
what you mean by saying that a table could not be moved a way ... 
Clearly it can, if it is designed that way. It just need a <dfn> 
element for marking up its identity reference ... 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:13:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC