Re: current definition of <figure> in HTML is problematic

It's people like that who are self-restricting their use of elements and
advising others to do it the same way that set precedents and then we end
up with a different reality from the spec (de-facto standards). I therefore
agree that we should put some clarifying language into the spec.

Maybe we just need to split up that paragraph and stat the "moving away"
possibility as a second sentence (after "but that...") as something that is
"also possible".

Silvia.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:

> Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 2013-01-24 09:44 +0000:
>
> > I think the current definition [4] of  the figure element leads to
> > developers thinking that they cannot use it to caption an image or images
> > that are ket parts of the content:
> >
> > "The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams,
> photos,
> > code listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the
> > document, but that could, without affecting the flow of the document, be
> > moved away from that primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to
> > dedicated pages, or to an appendix."
>
> I agree that statement seems to be confusing people, and so maybe some
> language should be added around there to make it more clear that the figure
> element is not necessarily restricted to being used only for the purpose
> described there.
>
> But I'm not sure it's the fault of the spec that some people are
> misunderstanding it. For one thing, that sentence above is clearly not
> stating any normative requirement. Or at least I think, to anybody who's
> taken time to get familiar with the editorial style the spec consistently
> uses, it would be clear that sentence states no normative requirements.
>
> For context about what I mean, it's worth also quoting what the spec says
> just before that statement you quote above. What it says is:
>
>   The figure element represents some flow content, optionally with a
>   caption, that is self-contained and is typically referenced as a single
>   unit from the main flow of the document.
>
> As far as I can see, that sentence is the only statement in the spec that
> normatively defines the meaning of the figure element. And the parts of
> that sentence that are qualified with "optionally" and "typically" are not
> stating absolute requirements, so the only statement that's actually fully
> normative is "The figure element represents some flow content that is
> self-contained."
>
> The spec very consistently uses a particular style to clearly distinguish
> between parts that are normative and parts that are just informative or
> illustrative. For a lot of elements, the only normative part is a sentence
> that uses "The foo element represents" pattern. And the part of the spec
> that gives those statements normative weight as authoring-conformance
> requirements is here:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#elements
>
>   Elements, attributes, and attribute values in HTML are defined (by this
>   specification) to have certain meanings (semantics). For example, the ol
>   element represents an ordered list, and the lang attribute represents the
>   language of the content.
>
>   Authors must not use elements, attributes, or attribute values for
>   purposes other than their appropriate intended semantic purpose, as doing
>   so prevents software from correctly processing the page.
>
> If elements have other normative authoring-conformance requirements, the
> spec states them very clearly by using RFC 2119 "must", "must not", etc.,
> language. For example, for the "address" element, the spec states these
> additional normative authoring constraints:
>
>   The address element must not be used to represent arbitrary addresses
>   (e.g. postal addresses), unless those addresses are in fact the relevant
>   contact information.
>
>   The address element must not contain information other than contact
>   information.
>
> So if the spec were going to actually normatively state what purposes a
> figure element is restricted to, it would state it with some "must" or
> "must not" language, like this:
>
>   The figure element must not be used to contain the main content of a
>   document or the main content of a section of a document.
>
>   The figure element must only be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams,
>   photos, code listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of
>   the document, but that could, without affecting the flow of the document,
>   be moved away from that primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to
>   dedicated pages, or to an appendix.
>
> But it doesn't say that. Instead, it just says the figure element "can be"
> used in a particular way. That implies that it's not necessarily restricted
> to the particular use it describes, and there's a possibility it can be
> used for other purposes.
>
> In other words, that statement is simply illustrative. It's just additional
> guidance that's there to help people understand what the element is by
> describing a common case where it can be used.
>
> > For example, in this current discussion
> > http://html5doctor.com/html5-simplequiz-7-pinterest/
> >
> > developers are making statements such as [1]:
> >
> > "I don’t think figure is appropriate, because it’s for things that can be
> > taken out of flow and moved to an appendix, and the pins on the page are
> > the whole point of the flow"
>
> So yeah the person quoted is making a mistaken inference about what the
> spec actually says.  The spec doesn't say that it's *only* for things that
> can be taken out of flow and moved to an appendix.
>
> > "<figure>s are intended to contain accessory content, not the main
> > substance of the section in question."
>
> And here I think the person quoted is making another mistaken inference
> that's going even farther away from what the spec actually says. The spec
> doesn't use the word "accessory" nor anything like it here, nor does it say
> that figure must not be used to mark up the main substance of anything.
>
> > "The spec says they can be moved away from the main flow of the document
> > without affecting the document’s meaning. I therefore don’t think it’s
> > appropriate to use them for the main image and description here." [2]
>
> So the spec doesn't say at all what the person quoted there is claiming.
> That is, it doesn't say that a figure is something that absolutely can
> always be moved away. It says the figure element "can be" used for things
> that could be moved away without affecting the document's "flow" (not
> "meaning", by the way, as misquoted above). It does not say that the figure
> element must only be used for those things, but not for anything else.
>
> I think in general some people do way too much hair-splitting about how a
> particular element should or should not be used -- I mean in cases like
> this, where the authoring restriction they're asserting is something that's
> not even possible to check with a validator and that has no relation to how
> the content is handled by a Web browser.
>
> But anyway, clearly for the case of figure we have some people that are
> reading more restrictions into its use than what the spec actually says. So
> I agree it would be worthwhile to come up with some additions or
> refinements to the language there to avoid having people unnecessarily
> restrict their use of the figure element in particular ways that there's no
> good reason they need to be restricting it to.
>
>   --Mike
>
> --
> Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
>
>