- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:02:56 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren, Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:59:44 +0200: > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:27:09 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli: >> Bug 1. [...] > It is the reason it was renamed. Otherwise <legend> would've been fine. Disagree. But I said myself willing to ignore it. And so I'll do. >> Bug 2. Another spec change is not mentioned at all: between August >> 2009 and March 2010, <figure> was moved from section 4.8 >> Embedded content to section 4.5 Grouping content. >> See the ToC: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/#auto-toc-4 >> Request: Please say that it was moved. And, if you can point >> to a reason for it, say why it was moved. > > I don't think it is relevant to mention this. Anne: Disagree. But I'll ignore my disagreement _provided_ that you _do_ describe <figure> as an element _not_ for "embedded content", but for 'grouped content', and provided that you make clear that the caption is optional - see below . >> Bug 3: [...] > Again, it is the reason. Disagree. But I said myself willing to ignore it. And so I'll do. >> * Section 3.1 New Elements: [3] >> >> ]] >> figure[1] can be used to associate a caption together with some >> embedded content, such as a graphic or video: >> <figure> >> <video src="ogg"></video> >> <figcaption>Example</figcaption> >> </figure> >> figcaption provides the caption. >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-figure-element >> [[ >> >> Bug 4: It is does not reflect HTML5 to present <figure> as a a way >> to provide captions for embedded content. (It does however >> match Shelley's change proposal before she changed it to a >> proposal to remove <figure>. >> Request: Describe what <figure> is meant for. > > It does not say captions, it says caption. And that is exactly how > HTML5 describes it too. Anne: First: 'captions' vs 'caption' = straw man Second: I kind of like your description of <figure>. But, unfortunately it does not reflect the spec. Just consider: if <figure>'s purpose is to be "used to associate a caption together with some <ins>grouped</ins><del>embedded</del> content", then how come the caption element is optional? Third: see below. Chairs: I object to publication of Differences until (1) "with some embedded content" is changed into something that reflects that <figure>'s purpose is grouping of elements, (2) and unless it is made clear that its caption element currently is optional. HTML5's description of <figure> contains 'single unit' and 'self-contained', which reflects <figure>'s grouping function. I used the wording 'self-contained unit' to reflect this, in this reconstruction of Annes current wording: ]] figure[1] can be used to group one or more embedded or textual elements as a more self-contained unit, for which one then may associate an optional caption: [ ... Anne's <figure> code example ... ] [[ Alternatively, I found a description in Wikipeda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_block, which I used to create this version of the same sentence: ]] figure[1] can be used to create a floating block (a text, table, or graphic unit separate from the main text) with an associated, optional caption: [ ... Anne's <figure> code example ... ] [[ Both the above examples would solve (1) and (2). >> [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/#new-elements -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 10:03:35 UTC