- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:18:57 -0700
- To: <public-html@w3.org>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>
-----Original Message----- From: Simon Pieters Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:14 AM To: public-html@w3.org ; Andrew Fedoniouk ; Andrew Fedoniouk Subject: Re: , , , , etc. >On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:17:21 +0200, Andrew Fedoniouk ><andrew.fedoniouk@live.com> wrote: > >> Each time when I see <figcaption> I want to ask: >> >> What is conceptually wrong with using <caption> as it is in <figure>'s? >> Why do we need element with such ugly name as <figure>? >> Why other grouping elements have no such caption counterparts? >> >> It is enough to define something like this: >> >> caption { display:block; } >> table > caption { display:table-caption; } >> >> in UA's default style sheet and we can use this element with its perfect >> semantic meaning. >> >> My pardon if it was discussed already. > >http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/1122 > It just means that <caption> at the moment has very strange parsing rules different from the rest of HTML parsing. I do not see why <caption> cannot be parsed as any other <div> alike element. As I said if it happens to be child of <table> when it will be treated as display:table-caption in all other cases it can be used as display:inline (by default) or any other style that makes sense to define for it. Consider this example: http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/1123 HTML there defines two elements: <caption> and <legend> As you see <legend> is parsed in even it is used outside of <fieldset> but <caption> for some reason is simply ignored. Very strange logic to be honest. If we will decide to start parsing <caption> in HTML5 not only in <table> context it will not break anything - will be backward compatible. Anything but please not <figcaption> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/figa -- Andrew Fedoniouk http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 15:19:27 UTC