- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:53:20 -0600
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Jeroen van der Gun <noreplytopreventspam@blijbol.nl>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > The spec clearly says that <figure> is not meant for *all* annotated > "illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings" either. But only for > those that hypothetically could have been removed from the document > without affecting "the flow of the document". If the text says "See > this figure: [figure]", then that is not hypothetically possible, > unless you also add a second hypothesis: "... if the text had > hypothetically been rewritten" ... No, it says that <figure "can thus be used" for such things. It is not saying "can only be used" or similar. It's presenting a usage example to ground the previous definition in reality and make it easy to understand. > Btw, not many e-mail message ago, you used "could be moved away" as > proof that you had found examples that constituted a figure: [1] > > ]] > In all of these cases the figures match > exactly with what the spec says - they are part of the document, but > could be moved away, perhaps into an appendix, without affecting the > meaning or flow of the document. > [[ Indeed. I don't believe I've contradicted myself; at no point did I indicate that this was the *only* criterion for <figure>. As I said in my previous message, it's a *common* attribute shared by <figure>-appropriate content, not a require one. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 21:53:56 UTC