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

[whatwg] The IMG element, proposing a CAPTION attribute

From: Steve Runyon <s.runyon@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:52:41 -0500
Message-ID: <2307bb790611220952r452df3fl69c0fb077f474839@mail.gmail.com>
That's an interesting point James - I missed that the first time by.

One minor point I would clarify: Alexey, you stated that <label for="XX"
type="title"> would replace the "title" attribute.  I assume you meant that
it should *supplement* it, since you wouldn't want to preclude its use or
mess with backward compatibility.

It sounds like <label for="XX" type="title"> would be a *terrific* addition
to HTML5, along with a new value for the "display" property, "tooltip".
(I'm thinking of all the JS that I wouldn't have to write anymore! :-)


On 11/22/06, Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:32:35 +0600, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > In general I think that having <img> and <imgcaption> (or whatever they
> > are called) enclosed by a single element is a better idea since the
> > increased simplicity makes rendering easier. For example, how would you
> > expect a browser to render this?:
> >
> > <p>Foo
> > <img id="bar">
> > <p>Foobar
> > <p>Baz
> > <imgcaption for="bar">Pictures are nice!</imgcaption>
> >
> > In all current UAs I guess it would render something like:
> >
> > Foo
> > <img>
> > Foobar
> > Baz
> > Pictures are nice
>
> This is exactly how I expect the above markup to be rendered. Unless the
> <imgcaption> is taken out of the flow by specifying display:tooltip, it
> should show where it's written. In fact, the difference between
> <imgcaption> and <div> is no more than between <address> and <div>:
> <imgcaption> is technically the same as <div> but conveys semantical
> meaning that its content is a title for image #bar.
>
> > But I can't think of many situations where a figure's caption should be
> > separate from the figure itself and, from the discussion above, it seems
> > that some people would expect:
> >
> > Foo
> > <img>
> > Pictures are nice
> > Foobar
> > Baz
>
> No, I don't expect this. If the author wanted this, he would have written
> <imgcaption> right after <img>.
>
> > Another issue to consider is the possibility of multiple images with a
> > single caption (this is very common in scientific papers, print
> > magazines, etc.). A construct like
> > <figure>
> > <img>
> > <img>
> > <img>
> > <imgcaption>
> > </figure>
> > might be enough to support this (the details are, I think, non-trivial);
> > something that requires the caption to point to exactly one image
> cannot.
>
> I'm thinking of <label type="title"> as of just a fancy replacement for
> the "title" attribute. In your example, I would write:
>
> <div id="fig1">
>   <img>
>   <img>
>   <img>
> </div>
> <label for="fig1" type="title">...</label>
>
> ...probably using something more specific than <div> to group the <img>
> elements.
>
>
> --
> Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru>
> [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061122/0060571b/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 09:52:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC