- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:51:03 -0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:21:38 -0000, 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. I agree. Perhaps changing ""The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations .. " to "The element may also be used .." thereby emphasising that it's a different use ("also"). Mike Smith said: > 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. [snip] > The spec very consistently uses a particular style to clearly distinguish > between parts that are normative and parts that are just informative or > illustrative. I'm not convinced that it's at all clear. It currently hangs on understanding the word "can" in "can thus.." means possibility rather than requirement, and a deeper familiarity with the style of the spec than most web developers can be expected to have. I suggest that normative statements be visually stronger, and sylistically differentiated from non-normative glosses. Perhaps if the normative statement "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." were surrounded by <strong>, in a div class="normative" that is styled to be surrounded by a box, it would indicate its importance more? bruce -- Bruce Lawson Open standards evangelist Developer Relations Team Opera http://dev.opera.com
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 15:51:39 UTC