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

Lachlan Hunt, Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:23:49 +0100:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> (1) If we cannot have just *one* caption element, then we should have
>> just one *naming convention*. For example, both elements could contain
>> the word 'caption' -<fcaption>  and<dcaption>. I consider this the
>> only option if we look for two elements. If we go for<fcaption>  and
>> <dlabel>, then authors will look in vain for any symmetry. The
>> <fcaption>  vs<summary>  already breaks the principle of
>> one-naming-convention very badly ... !
> 
> Why?

See above. Because it is important that authors get it. A logical and 
symmetric language with as few gotchas as possible is good for them.

>  The figure and details elements are not really related in any 
> way.

They are /similar/ rather than related. Similar in structure. Like <ol> 
and <ul>. 

> They only have a superficial relationship because they once both 
> used the legend element, and currently both use dt/dd, and that's 
> only because of the attempt to reuse existing elements.

So you want to use the caption element(s) to underline the difference 
between <figure> and <details>? Isn't it enough that the one is called 
<details> and the other is called <figure>?

>  Otherwise, they are semantically different 

No one will mix the two just because they share a child element.

> and there is no reason they need to  use the same element,

There is of course no absolute need to make a logical, coherent and 
"good looking" language. But there is even less need to create an ugly 
language.

> nor even use elements with similar names.  It seems better
> to pick element names based solely on their intended semantics,

Things that are coherent and symmetric can /underline/ semantics and 
ease the language learning = be good for users. Ignoring coherence and 
symmetry can /undermine/ semantics and hamper learning.

> and judged based on their own merits, rather than trying to 
> impose any artificial restrictions, like having the names share 
> a common word.

Then <summary> looks very much as if one reached out for a common word.
 
> Also, even if we do use a summary element for details, that doesn't 
> rule out using it for table if we really want to do that 

That doesn't make it any better as an element for <details>, I'm afraid.

> (I'm not taking a position either way on that issue for the 
> moment). Both  would provide a summary for their associated content.

A details element which only reveals itself to users via a caption 
element with the text "Help" does not stand out as something that we 
all would jump and shout "a summary" about. 

I only see that <details> needs a caption. And if <summary> is marketed 
as a neutral caption element (that is: if it is used both in <figure> 
and <details>) _then_ I think it /could/ work, also for <details>. 
Because then its use in <figure> might spill over positively to 
<detail> and vice-versa.

But frankly, <summary> doesn't feel very good whether for <figure> or 
<details>. 
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 00:59:35 UTC