- From: Ben Meadowcroft <ben@benmeadowcroft.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:02:16 +0100
> > 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