W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: <figure> bugs in Differences document

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>
Message-ID: <20100623120256034493.b0b96dc2@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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.


	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.


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 

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 

  [ ... 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC