- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 02:53:42 +0200
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:03:45 -0500: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 06/01/2010 06:45 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> >>> Neither of the decisions addresses the other HTML audiences, such as web >>> developers, designers, tech writers, tool builders, and so on. >> >> I personally spent considerable time scanning the web to see if I >> could substantiate the claims that these elements were too complex >> for these audiences. What I found instead was plenty of instances >> where people were welcoming these changes, often eagerly. > The real point is: who asked for these elements either in the WhatWG > group, or in the W3C? A figure like solution has been discussed long and hard: XHTML2 suggested a <caption> to the <object> element. HTML-before-4 had a <fig> element. And the very issue of offering captions to elements has been discussed many times in tutorials etc. So this issue seems worth solving in HTML5. Btw: I can say that when I first started to look at HTML5, then <figure> was one of the elements that I first caught my interest. I immediately linked it to <object> -and interpreted it as variant of <object>, so to speak. Though, I am not sure that this is how those that placed it into HTML5 thought of it. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 00:54:16 UTC