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

Re: Alternate proposals for ISSUE-83

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:59:38 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001141559x1532bb1ehd9bf45b08d043692@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> A) Use <fltcap> as the caption for both <details> and <figure>. No special
>> body elements. [Submitted by Shelley Powers]
>> B) Use a caption="" attribute on any element as the caption for <figure>,
>> with no special body element. No change for <details>. [Submitted by Tab
>> Atkins]
>> C) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the caption
>> for <details>. No special body elements. [Submitted by Maciej Stachowiak]
>> D) Use <fcaption> as the caption for <figure> and <dlabel> as the caption
>> for <details>. Use optional <fbody> and <dbody> respectively for their
>> bodies. [Submitted by Tab Atkins]
> I definitely prefer either C or D.  <fltcap> is hard to understand,
> and using an attribute here is weird.  Of the two, I can definitely
> see the argument for D, but I'm not sure the extra elements are worth
> it, so I'm undecided.

What is the argument for wrapping the body in an element, rather than
assuming that everything that isn't in the <fcaption>/<dlable> is the

The argument against it is that fewer elements is author friendly
since it's less for them to type out/send across the wire. It also
removes the risk that people will forget or not bother with the
body-wrapping element.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 00:00:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC