- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:31:57 +0200
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Steven Faulkner, Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:52:22 +0100: > Please correct me, but i would have thought that a primary use case > for the figure/figcaption elements would be to mark up images such as: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/dunechaser/134672022/ > > example: > <figure> > <img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/134672022_684792c559.jpg> > <figcaption>Inventor of the World Wide Web, director of the World Wide > Web Consortium (W3C), > Knight Commander of the British Empire.</figcaption> > </figure> > > > this seems at odds with the figure element as specified: > "The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, > photos, code listings, etc, As you see, <figure> is like <object> - it can have many roles. So the first thing Flickr should do, if it wants to use <figure>, is to use role="img". <figure role="img"> The primary motivation for Flickr would probably be accessibility, including as a solution that allows them to treat @alt more simply. And thus we must make it clear how to use @role, aria-* and figure captions. > that are referred to from the main content > of the document, but that could, without affecting the flow of the > document, be moved away from that primary content, e.g. to the side of > the page, to dedicated pages, or to an appendix." > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element > > As in the case above the image IS the main content of the document. > > Am i reading the spec incorrectly or is the spec incorrect or is the > use in the example incorrect? FLickr can be perceived as "dedicated pages" to the <figure>s have been moved away to. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 10:33:03 UTC