- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:22:27 -0700
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> > > Thank you, yes, it does help. I hadn't found the message where Ian > announced the change. > > I did find the two from Michael, who seems to be the only person who > cared much about this. Frankly, most people were more interested in > discussing what the figure caption element should be called. > > I don't have time to look further. If the Editor wants to provide more > links to support his rationale, I'd welcome them. > > Shelley > > I don't recall if I sent any mail or talked on IRC or what about this issue, but often when someone says something that I agree with, I won't make any further comment. There's no need to. In this case, I recall agreeing strongly with what Michael said. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 22:23:19 UTC