W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:38:54 -0800
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <B66A28C9-8DD7-41A7-8D8C-18473F601032@apple.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>

On Jan 14, 2010, at 12:28 PM, James Graham wrote:

> Quoting Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>:
>> C) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the
>> caption for <details>. No special body elements. [Submitted by Maciej
>> Stachowiak]
> FWIW I like this proposal but I prefer the name <figcaption> to  
> <fcaption>. I believe it is more obvious what the purpose of the  
> element is (fig. is a common abbreviation for figure) which is  
> particularly important as there is already a <caption> element in  
> HTML that cannot be used within a <figure> element. Although it  
> doesn't follow the design pattern of <thead> and <tbody>, these are  
> rarely used elements and as such should not set a strong precedent.  
> It is closer to <optgroup> in form. Although <figcaption> is  
> slightly longer than <fcaption> it is not likely to be used so often  
> that brevity should trump readability (as is the case for e.g. <td>  
> or <p>).
> Am I expected to write this up as a separate change proposal? Does  
> anyone else agree that it is a worthwhile idea?

In my Change Proposal that encapsulates Option C, I agreed to support  
reasonably similar names (including <figcaption>) if they are the  
preference of the Working Group. So you don't need to write a separate  
Change Propsal, unless you think that would influence more people to  
support your name preference.

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 20:39:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:56 UTC