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

Re: Request for group input on ISSUE-83 (figure and details captions)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:22:02 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001210622ra5de118i8ab88769b6f9d783@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> So it sounds like no one else has strong feelings. I therefore
>> suggest  that Ian should implement the fcaption/dlabel Change Proposal:
>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/DdDtFcaptionDlabel
>> I think it would be fine to pick either of<fcaption>  or<figcaption>,
>> and either of<dlabel>  or<dsummary>. Once that change is made, the
>> Chairs will post a Call for Consensus to close this issue by amicable
>> resolution.
> Just to be clear, does this mean you're ruling out the other alternative of
> using <summary>, as mentioned in the change proposal, or is the choice
> between dlabel, dsummary and summary being left entirely to the editor's
> discretion?

I made a statement that summary is not acceptable. Summary is already
being used for an attribute, and we don't need to create confusion.

There are other options.

> --
> Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software


> http://lachy.id.au/
> http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 14:22:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:57 UTC