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

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<> wrote:
> 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
> [1].
> 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?

My original suggestion was to have one element, not only for details
and figure, but to act as a caption for any new element in the future.
The functionality is the same for both.

There was an objection to the name, and I have no problem with another
name. Well, not summary, but some other name. There was another
objection, though, about the same element being used for both. I
believe the counter-proposals may have given this objection, not sure
what it is.

However, I'm OK with one element being used for both, and it being
named anything except for something that already exists within the
HTML specification.

> 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
> future.

I have no objection to <about>.

> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> --
> leif halvard silli


Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 03:46:26 UTC