Re: <caption>, <figcaption>, <seccaption>, <divcaption>, etc.

-----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