- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:32:40 +0100
----- D?but du message transf?r? ----- <small>Part of the thread that was accidentally sent privately, not on the list It may be worth reading for other, so I transfer</small> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:40:32 -0500, Michel Fortin wrote: > That was my idea of what you were doing. With this syntax there's no > association between the description and the image, I'm not sure you > caught that from my explanation though. I did not. And I still don't get it. A dd shall (must?) be attached to a dt A dt shall (must?) be attached to a dd There is only one of each, so they shall be attached, in my mind. What is wrong in my thinking (by the way, this may be off-topic for the list. I am not sure, since by finding what is wrong, we *may* end up making some proposals) > With the current state of the <figure> element, you can't do this. I > remember proposing a while ago that <figure> accepts more than a > single embedded elements. That seem to be a good use-case. > > <figure> > <img ...> > <img ...> > <img ...> > <legend>...</legend> > </figure> So, if figure doesn't allow this, how can it be done? With present specs and with future specs? (of course, I'm not talking of rendering but of semantics there) Thank you -- </david_latapie> U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Fran?ais) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 09:32:40 UTC