Re: [whatwg] use cases for <figure> without <figcaption>?

Hi Xaxio, (and martin)

i get why figure on its own is OK.

I think that it's OK to use the figure/figcaption pattern on any image (for
example) that the author wants to provide a caption for.

The use case being: I want to provide some text as a caption for some other
content.

It is unclear to me (at least) whether the whatwg spec says that is OK or
not.

the latest (single page) whatwg spec says:

"The figure element represents some flow content, optionally with a
caption, that is self-contained (like a complete sentence) and is typically
referenced as a single unit from the main flow of the document."

There is no normative text that says it MUST be referenced, only a non
normative phrase "typically referenced"

so that suggests to me that it is OK to use figure/figcaption for the use
case i described and the one you described, but then the there is a lot of
other descriptive text about figure that serves to befuddle my
understanding.

note: the whatwg spec and the w3c html spec which you referenced currently
differ on figure, the proposed changes in the whatwg spec are under
discussion in the html wg.

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 21 June 2013 08:38, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> One *could* use <div> elements in place of the <figure> elements; but then
> again, one could use <div> elements in place of many elements in order to
> remove their semantical meaning and send us back into the dark ages ;)
>
> I believe that <figure> is possibly the best element for the job, in
> agreement what Martin said regarding the spec specifying a figure being
> something that is *typically* referenced in the document [1].  I also
> believe that <figcaption> is necessary for exact specification (such as in
> medical documents or legal documents), but may be completely unnecessary
> for certain other documents (such as the font document example we are
> discussing).
>
> The reason I brought up placement and relevance of the figures in the
> first place is because of this sentence in the specification:
>
>>  This includes, but is not restricted to, content referred to from the
>> main part of the document, but that could, without affecting the flow of
>> the document, be moved away from that primary content, e.g. to the side of
>> the page, to dedicated pages, or to an appendix.
>>
> However, all of this does leave me wondering about an instance of fluff in
> an HTML document and how to appropriately define it.
>
> Consider a web page that is devoid of color or motion, and is thus less
> interesting to people who *must* read it.  An example of this can be an
> online driving education course.  Now imagine that the author of the page
> wanted to seem less boring, and so adds a piece of barely related clip art
> to the page, and said clip art is not referenced anywhere in the main
> document material.  The author wants to add a humorous comment to the image
> to lighten the mood of the page, and considers using <figure> and
> <figcaption>.
>
> Would it be appropriate to caption the aforementioned clip art using
> <figcaption> if it is contained in an <aside> element, claiming that the
> figure is self-referential yet only tangentially related to the document?
> If not, is there an element better suited to this purpose, or we can we
> redefine the <figcaption> element to encompass a purpose such as this?
>
> --Xaxio
>
> References:
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/single-page.html#the-figure-element
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Martin Janecke <whatwg.org@prlbr.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>>
>> >> The fact that they are enclosed in the <figure> elements means that
>> they
>> > are referenced somewhere, I believe.
>> >
>> > so if not referenced somewhere, they should not be in a figure?
>>
>>
>> Probably they should not, as figures are "typically referenced as a
>> single unit from the main flow of the document"^[1]. I'd like to add that
>> the reference can be implicit, though. A short car magazine article about a
>> particular model might be a good example. Readers who are likely to have
>> seen some cars in their lives will identify a car's front section on a
>> photograph by themselves and make the connection to what the articles
>> writes about it.
>>
>> Here is such an article:
>> http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-bmw-4-series-photos-and-info-news
>> Although the webpage does not actually use figure elements, it would be
>> appropriate for the photographs that are embedded in the main article. The
>> photographs illustrate and enhance the article's content by providing more
>> design details than the text, are self-contained, not part of the main flow
>> and implicitly referenced from it. (The photos should have alt-texts
>> though.)
>>
>> Regards
>> Martin
>>
>> [1]: WHATWG HTML spec 4.5.11 The figure element
>>
>> Am 20.06.2013 um 23:27 schrieb Steve Faulkner:
>>
>>
>> > Hi Xaxio,
>> >
>> > <p>Fonts come in many different varieties. The Arial font, for example,
>> > does not have serifs.</p> <div>arial</div>
>> > <p>However, font varieties go beyond simple serif and sans-serif
>> > distinctions. The Old English font is neither of these, instead being
>> > considered a "decorative" font.</p><div>Old English</div>
>> >
>> > The above example has meaning with or without the divs, and the
>> placement
>> > of the divs doesn't matter. They could be in a font index at the end of
>> the
>> > document, as long as the data consumer knows to look there if example
>> are
>> > needed.  right?
>> >
>> >> The fact that they are enclosed in the <figure> elements means that
>> they
>> > are referenced somewhere, I believe.
>> >
>> > so if not referenced somewhere, they should not be in a figure?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > SteveF
>> > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 20 June 2013 20:46, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> <p>Fonts come in many different varieties. The Arial font, for example,
>> >> does not have serifs.</p> <figure>arial</figure>
>> >> <p>However, font varieties go beyond simple serif and sans-serif
>> >> distinctions. The Old English font is neither of these, instead being
>> >> considered a "decorative" font.</p><figure>Old English</figure>
>> >>
>> >> The above example has meaning with or without the figures, and the
>> >> placement of the figures doesn't matter. They could be in a font index
>> at
>> >> the end of the document, as long as the data consumer knows to look
>> there
>> >> if example are needed.  The fact that they are enclosed in the <figure>
>> >> elements means that they are referenced somewhere, I believe.
>> >>
>> >> When referring to multiple figures containing graphs or tables with
>> really
>> >> long names such as "Number of Children With Orange Dreadlocks With
>> Respect
>> >> to Decade" and "Periods of Time During Which Dreadlocks Are Popular,
>> Where
>> >> Orange Is Popular, and Where They Overlap", it's so much easier just to
>> >> give them a <figcaption> and refer to "Table 1" and "Table 2" in the
>> >> document.
>> >>
>> >> --Xaxio
>> >> On Jun 20, 2013 12:20 PM, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> OK so how do you reference
>> >>>
>> >>> <figure>
>> >>> arial
>> >>> </figure>
>> >>>
>> >>> for example?
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>>
>> >>> SteveF
>> >>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 20 June 2013 20:16, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> The figures could be in a document talking about fonts, yet easily
>> moved
>> >>>> to the side of the page and still maintain relevance if referenced
>> within
>> >>>> the document.  I think something important about figures is placement
>> >>>> irrelevance as long as they can be referenced, whereas paragraphs
>> don't
>> >>>> have the added semantic of "this will be referenced at some point."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --Xaxio
>> >>>> On Jun 20, 2013 12:10 PM, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com
>> >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> An illustration of a font name, in its respective font?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> why is <figure> better in this case than <p> (for example) ?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> SteveF
>> >>>>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 20 June 2013 19:27, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> An illustration of a font name, in its respective font?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --Xaxio
>> >>>>>> On Jun 20, 2013 11:24 AM, "Steve Faulkner" <
>> faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> What are the use cases for a <figure> without a <figcaption> ?
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> SteveF
>> >>>>>>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 10:01:32 UTC