W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2006

[whatwg] image captions

From: Ben Meadowcroft <ben@benmeadowcroft.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:02:16 +0100
Message-ID: <004101c65e5b$4106fe10$0202a8c0@BensPC>
> > 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'd prefer using a caption element, even if it isn't backwards compatible.
However as an alternative why not reuse the label element?

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20060412/3f7d03b9/attachment.bin>
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 11:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:46 UTC