- From: Michel Fortin <michel.fortin@michelf.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:28:13 -0500
Le 22 nov. 2006 ? 12:15, Alexey Feldgendler a ?crit : > I'm not saying it's a caption either. A caption is just one of the > possible ways of rendering a title. But is a caption limited to a title? Very often, captions contains some explanations too. I just opened a computer architecture book near me I knew was full of figures and the first figure I spotted had a eleven-line caption -- 5 complete sentences. I know not everyone use captions like this. But calling captions "title" pose two problems: it clashes in name with the title attribute, making both of them a little more ambiguous, and it somewhat limit the correct usage, leaving a hole to be filled for any additional explanation that needs to be attached to the figure. > It's not clear for Google Images which needs to extract (image, > title) pairs from documents. But isn't this a weakness in the table markup? I mean, what if I was using this table layout for non-image data instead, should it be done any different? Maybe scope="" or some other attributes would be more appropriate to express the association. And I'm not even sure a table is appropriate in this case. Isn't the table there for purely presentational reasons? Michel Fortin michel.fortin at michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 11:28:13 UTC