W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] Figure without caption

From: Colin Lieberman <colin@fontshop.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:47:31 -0700
Message-ID: <45F86D73.7000009@fontshop.com>
Great example. 
(http://www.radio-canada.ca/arts-spectacles/PlusArts/2007/03/13/003-viacom_youtube.asp)

My reading is that one would use <figure> as the block-level parent of 
the second image, where the first image could happily be inline.

Michel Fortin wrote:
> Le 2007-03-14 ? 16:24, Lachlan Hunt a ?crit :
>
>> Even if figure were allowed to be used without legend, what would be 
>> the point?  That would be no better than just adding an extraneous 
>> wrapper <div> around the object just to work around the content model 
>> restrictions.
>
> If <figure> denotes illustrative content, your image then becomes an 
> illustration of the subject in the surrounding text. Otherwise, you 
> have no way to distinguish images which are meant to be read as part 
> of the text -- mathematic formulas embedded as images for instance -- 
> and those which are more detached from the prose -- a photo 
> illustrating the text's subject.
>
>  - - -
>
> I'd like to submit this example of a news article having two pictures; 
> both are styled the same, they both have the same purpose 
> (illustration), yet one has no caption while the other has one.
>
> <http://www.radio-canada.ca/arts-spectacles/PlusArts/2007/03/13/003-viacom_youtube.asp> 
>
>
> If we say the second picture is a figure, how can we reasonably say 
> the first one is not? A table does not need a caption to be a table, 
> and I don't think a figure needs a caption to be a figure: it just 
> needs to be an illustration of the surrounding subject.
>
>
> Michel Fortin
> michel.fortin at michelf.com
> http://www.michelf.com/
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:47:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:53 UTC