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

Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:53:29 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <CF6756E5-B374-4F32-9A06-804AD0910426@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>

On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> The rationale for the editor declining bug 8404 is[1]:
>
> Rationale: I actually agree with Shelley on this, and that's what  
> HTML5 used to
> say. However, it is one of the very few topics which got a _huge_  
> outcry from
> Web authors around the Web, demanding that <figure> be allowed to  
> contain
> basically any flow content (including sections, headings,  
> paragraphs, lists,
> etc). That's why the spec says what it does now.
>
> I searched through WhatWG and HTML WG email lists, and I didn't see
> any significant pushback on the original definition of figure. Most of
> the objections seemed to be attached to the bug, not in any email
> list.

Here's the email where the change to the figure content model was  
first announced:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-February/014038.html

It has replies to multiple messages, some of the ones I was able to  
identify include:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-November/008015.html
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-July/012194.html

There is probably more discussion to be found in the WHATWG list  
archives and elsewhere on the Web.

Hope this helps,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 07:54:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC