- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:28:50 -0600
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Nikita Popov <privat at ni-po.com> wrote: > Your proposed syntax looks more nice. But still, why do we need the > figure-wrapper? It would be cleaner syntax, in my eyes, if you could easily > specify an element that is related as a caption to another element. Could > look like this: > <img src="bunny.jpg" alt="A Bunny" id="bunny"> > <p caption="bunny">The Cutest Animal</p> > or > <img src="bunny.jpg" alt="A Bunny" id="bunny"> > <p for="bunny">The Cutest Animal</p> People will very commonly use a wrapper in any case, for styling the figure+caption together. For example, putting a border and background on it and positioning it. As well, using a wrapping element to implicitly scope things is easier than explicitly using indirection like @for. I always prefer to do <label>text <input></label> instead of <label for=foo>text</label><input id=foo>, for example, because it's just plain easier to maintain. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 11:28:50 UTC