- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:00:25 +0100
- To: Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
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