- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:21:51 +0200
- To: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Smylers@stripey.com, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:02:42 +0200, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: >>> We keep referencing the importance of semantics, but most of the >>> considerations about elements to use for Figure and Details have been >>> based on some physical characteristic or behavior. Physical >>> characteristics and behaviors, I should add, that came about because >>> of earlier, non-compatible semantics. >> >> That's exactly right - the other plausible existing elements are ruled >> out because of their pre-existing use and behavior. I don't have a >> strong opinion on <dt> vs. a new element - as far as I'm concerned, >> either is acceptable. All I wanted to do is clarify why <caption>, >> <label>, or other similar elements, are not an option for technical >> reasons that go beyond aesthetics. >> > > Actually, label has been found to be acceptable for use with Figure. I don't think <label> is acceptable, because it interacts with form controls and is generally allowed anywhere. What if you want a form control in the figure caption? What if you want a <label> as the figure content? It wouldn't work if <label> was used as the figure caption. Also, <label> is rendered as an inline element in legacy browsers, but a figure caption should be block level. <dt> does not have these problems. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 14:22:43 UTC