- From: Wilfredo Sanchez Jr. <tritan@calloway.mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:49:15 -0400
- To: connolly@beach.w3.org
- Cc: kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca, klute@nads.de, mikebat@clark.net, www-html@www10.w3.org
connoly: | 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: mikebat: | 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 captions. 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 decision. connoly: | 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. -Fred tritan@agora.com tritan@mit.edu Agora Technology Group, Inc. MIT Integrated Studies Program
Received on Thursday, 13 July 1995 09:49:33 UTC