- 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>
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 expect. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 16:41:38 UTC