W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 1995

Re: <FIG> implies <P>?

From: Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@the-tech.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:03:06 +0500
Message-Id: <9507131303.AA00347@walden.ot.com>
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>
Cc: Ka-Ping Yee <kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca>, Rainer Klute <klute@nads.de>, Mike Batchelor <mikebat@clark.net>, www-html@www10.w3.org
>>>>> "Dan" == Daniel W Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org> writes:

  Dan> I just had a discussion with Dave Raggett about this... <FIG>
  Dan> is meant to compliment, not replace, <IMG>. There's a lot of
  Dan> history behind the current spec. Some of it is technical, but
  Dan> some of it is political stuff that I won't go into.

  Dan> Suffice it to say that HTML 3.0, like many other markup
  Dan> languages, includes two idioms for graphics: the <img> element
  Dan> for phrase-level stuff, like little funny characters or inline
  Dan> icons (or inline math formulas or ...) and <fig> for "displayed
  Dan> formulas" or graphic callouts or ... .

I don't think this really explains why <fig> must break paragraphs. My
notion of "displayed formulas" and other things that are typically
called "figures" is that they may fall within a paragraph.

Is there a good reason why <fig> can't be changed? 

Jeremy Hylton                                 jeremy@the-tech.mit.edu
Library 2000
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science           directory of technology
545 Technology Square                             ** The Tech **
Cambridge MA 02139                               MIT's Oldest and
<http://the-tech.mit.edu/~jeremy/>              Largest Newspaper
Received on Thursday, 13 July 1995 09:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:15 UTC