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

Aryeh Gregor, Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:15:16 -0500:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <> wrote:
>> That sounds pretty convincing to me, I don't know of anyone being 
>> seriously confused by the cases above. And I agree your example with 
>> plain <summary> reads nicely. Shelley, are you willing to reconsider 
>> your objection on this point? Does anyone else have an opinion one 
>> way or the other?

Se below.

> I also find Ian's argument convincing.  There's no need for the extra
> letter when we can just use <summary>, and I don't see any clear
> reason why we can't.  We can use <summary> in tables as well if we
> want to do that,

<summary> in tables? Interesting. For what? To replace <caption>? 
However, for parsing reasons this is not possible, is it?

> there's no reason it has to be figure-only -- the

"figure-only"? The <summary> talked about here is for <details> *only*. 
However, like you, I don't see why one eventually needs to have two 
different elements for <details> and <figure>.

> only reason <caption>/<legend>/<label> can't be used in multiple
> elements is because of legacy parsing rules that won't be applicable
> here.  The only other objection I've seen is that it's used as an
> unrelated attribute, but Ian's list of all the other cases where
> that's true (including two new to HTML5, it seems?) is pretty
> convincing evidence that it's not a problem.

The issue is not the potential confusion with @summary, but that 
<summary> has been mentioned in many debates as an element to go inside 
<caption> and do the job of @summary.

Shelley is right here. I support her in her objection. 

Laura, I don't see how *this* <summary> relates to Al Gilman's thoughts 

I personally also don't find <summary>/<dsummary> a good name as a 
<details> caption. For example consider this example from the <table> 
section in the draft [2] (where I replaced <dt> with summary :

<details><summary>Help</summary> [.. explanation ..]</details>

There is no summary here?! It is just a very short label/identifier. 
(And as well: The draft only permits phrasing content inside the 
<details> caption - whereas <summary> invites to a full explanation - I 
certainly don't think of a summary as any shorter than a caption - on 
the contrary!)

I *do* think of @summary here: Some has said that @summary is actually 
a confusing name, when we consider its purpose. But at the very least, 
@summary *is* about giving a summary/overview. I don't see that 
<summary> inside <details> is anywhere near a hint of what its purpose 
is. <dlabel> was then much better.  

Bruce Lawson previously asked: [3]
> Out of interest (I don't have an agenda) wouldn't you mint the same 
> element for both purposes (as you did with legend and dd/dt?)

And I have to ask the same question. And, Shelley, I actually thought 
the point with your proposal about <fltcap> (floating cap) was to have 
a caption which could *potentially* be used in several elements?

Since it has all ended with an amicable solution approach, I would like 
to suggest that we should have just one and the same caption element 
for both elements.

My proposal is still[4] <about>.

Rationale: <about> can function if the content is not seen - like for 
the <details> element. <about> can also work if <figure> contains an 
<img> only. Then it is clear that <about> is about the image. <about> 
can also work as more "pure" caption for a normal classic, academic 
figure. And it doesn't hurt that <about> could be used about other 
elements that potentially could get staffed with a caption - in the 

leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 03:15:23 UTC