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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:47:08 -0700
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <093A42F9-A6AB-403D-8195-18095B4C9C73@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Oct 7, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> Le 5 oct. 2010 à 12:30, Ian Hickson a écrit :
>>> What people do _not_ do with figures is put them in the middle of
>>> sentences. 
>> What about Sparklines?
>> http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0001OR&topic_id=1
> All of the figures on those pages are either between paragraphs or floated 
> (in the latter case the exact position in the markup can't be guessed, but 
> there's no reason to put such figures in the middle of a sentence either; 
> doing so makes it harder to maintain).
> There are a number of inline images on those pages, but those would be 
> equivalent to just <img> with alternative text, IMHO, not <figure>.

There are examples in that text that have sparklines in a paragraph, though coincidentally not ones that also have a caption. Let's imagine the glucose sparkline from the first page was included inline in a paragraph, including its caption of "glucose 128". <img> with alternative text does not capture the semantic association between the caption and the associated illustration. Why would <figure> be semantically wrong?

Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 18:47:42 UTC

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