- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:10:50 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 5, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Ian Hickson 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. > > > SUMMARY > ======= > > It is argued that <figure> is equivalent to <p> or <aside> and should > be treated as such, including being consistent in parsing. I agree. It would be very hard to explain the proper use of figure as an element name if it does not have the same characteristics of a figure in traditional written works. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2010 19:11:25 UTC