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

Andrew Fedoniouk, Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:21:40 -0700:
>Leif Halvard Silli Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:11
>> Andrew Fedoniouk, Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:18:57 -0700:
>>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:14 AM
>>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:17:21 +0200, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

>> But as your example code shows: Had we choosen <caption/> rather 
>> than <figcaption/> and <summary/>, the time before people could use 
>> <figure/> and <details/> would probably have been prolonged rather 
>> than diminished. [1] 
> To be honest I do not understand the idea of such reasoning.
> Say if

If, then you should should file a bug - else there isn't much to 

Or perhaps, instead of filing a new bug, you should consider reopening 
one of the bugs that was filed about this - perhaps even looking into 
the decision process that lead to the current choice. [1]

For my own part, instead of <figcaption> I've proposed to reuse 
<summary> as caption also of <figure>. [2] Such a <summary> would also 
have been possible to reuse as caption for other elemetns that in the 
future might need a caption - I understand that future needs is part of 
your concern. Btw, a <summary> could also have been possible inside 
<table>, as extra caption - instead of the @summary attribute. (The 
chairs, when deciding in the summary issue - ISSUE-32, considered an 
extra element as the second best solution - and I think a global 
<summary> be that element. E.g. let us imagine that <summary> inside 
<table> would default to be visually hidden whenever there is a 
<caption>, but that it would behave like <summary> inside <figure> - 
that is: be visible, whenever <caption> is omitted.) 

If you have better ideas, then they are welcome - in a bug.

Leif Halvard Silli

Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 11:09:43 UTC