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

Re: <FIG> implies <P>?

From: Wilfredo Sanchez Jr. <tritan@calloway.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:49:15 -0400
Message-Id: <199507131349.JAA14062@calloway.mit.edu>
To: connolly@beach.w3.org
Cc: kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca, klute@nads.de, mikebat@clark.net, www-html@www10.w3.org

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

I find this somewhat unneccessary. By implicitly breaking a paragraph
with <fig>, one has made some useful features impossible, such as
Mike's example:

| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| xxxx +----------+ xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx |          | xxxxxxx
| xxxx +----------+ xxxxxxx
| xxxx   caption    xxxxxxx
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Therefore, then, it seems we want <img> to be able to have

Basically, I don't see the need for two idioms, when <fig> can cover
all grounds. Besides, any difference between "displayed" and "inlined"
figures could be an attribute if they make for a really useful

| The fact that the functionality of <img> doesn't include things like
| client-side image maps and other consequences of using an ALT
| attribute rather than content is an unfortunate consequence of some
| historical decisions.

And should be corrected, while we have the opportunity.

	 tritan@agora.com		tritan@mit.edu
	 Agora Technology Group, Inc.	MIT Integrated Studies Program
Received on Thursday, 13 July 1995 09:49:33 UTC

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