Re: @caption vs <caption type="figure">

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:15:20 -0600, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:18:10 -0600, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Shelley Powers  wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Ennals, Robert wrote:
>> 
>>> There's nothing stopping us from making attributes affect the
>>> semantics of an element.  In fact, we do so right now, with <time
>>> pubdate>.  That is also my preferred solution to the <figure> issue -
>>> I'd like to see a @caption attribute that can be added to any child of
>>> <figure>.
>> 
>> If there is nothing stopping us, then why didn't you instead propose an
>> attribute for the <caption> element that could permit it to be used
>> also outside <table>?
> 
> Because that won't do anything to solve the problem.  We're not
> prevented from reusing <caption> because of semantics, we're prevented
> from reusing it because most/all current and past implementations
> treat <caption> outside of <table> in such a way that it's completely
> unusable for <figure>.  Putting an attribute on it won't change this.

So, contrary to what you said about namespaces not being a good 
solution for introducing new experimental features, it would actually 
be simpler to introduce <caption> for other elements than <table> via a 
real/prefixed namespace. For example a transitional namespace for new 
HTML5 features. The following already works.:

<figure><t:caption></t:caption></figure>

As time goes, and old user agents fades out, one could drop the prefix.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Sunday, 22 November 2009 17:41:33 UTC