- From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:17:51 -0400
Le 7 avr. 2006 ? 11:09, Alexey Feldgendler a ?crit : > Actually, I tend to treat images and tables the same. Tables have > <caption>s, and a user agent can make a list of tables for > navigation. Why can't an image have a caption? I think images and > tables are quite similar. > > And I don't think that "heading" is the appropriate semantic entity > for marking up captions. Rather than making them headers and at the > same time taking measures so that they don't interfere with UA's > outlining facilities, I'd rather say that headings should be left > entirely for document outline, and captions are marked up > explicitly as captions. Well, I'm all for using <caption> -- it obviously is the most logical choice -- but, as stated in my first reply, the caption element is completely ignored by today's HTML parsers when outside the context of a table. This makes captions impossible to style or use within the DOM. That's why I'm suggesting an alternative that doesn't involve the caption element. Personally, I can leave with a caption element that doesn't show up in the DOM of legacy user-agents. But given all the attention given to backward compatibility, it just seem a little out of place to ignore such an issue. > I'm replying to the mailing list, assuming that you have replied > off-list by accident. There was nothing really private in your > message, and I think the discussion hasn't went off-topic. Yes, that was an accident, and not the first. I'm used to some other lists where I can just hit reply. Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 10:17:51 UTC