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

Re: ISSUE-128 (figure-in-p): Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:40:50 +0200
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vj33acar64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:30:07 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> The current draft of the Change Proposal is at
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/FigureInP
> I volunteer to write a counter-proposal, the first draft of which is
> below. I welcome feedback both from people who agree with this position,
> and wish to make the arguments presented below stronger, and from people
> who disagree with this position, and who can explain why I am wrong.

I think a point I missed in your description is that having e.g.  
<p><figure><pre> work, but <p><pre> break, as suggested by Henri, is  
highly illogical and confusing. Henri told me he thinks this okay because  
people only look at the nearest ancestor (i.e. parent-child  
relationships), but I do not think that is true. You often change your  
markup around and in this scenario if you removed <figure>, </p> would  
suddenly be implied before the <pre>, which is not really what you would  

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 16:41:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:05 UTC