Re: <FIG> implies <P>?

In a message dated 95-07-13 14:59:02 EDT, www-html@www10.w3.org writes:

>| 
>| 	<p>The bond angle between the two oxygen-hydrogen
>| 	bonds in water is slightly larger than that
>| 	between two carbon-hydrogen bonds in methane
>| 	(see <a href="fig1">figure 1</a>)<spot id=fig1anchor>.  This
>| 	is due to the two extra pairs of free electrons around the
>| 	oxygen atom, which take up more space than the bound
>| 	pairs.</p> 
>| 
>| 	<fig src="molecules.jpg" id="fig1" align="right" at="fig1anchor">
>| 	figure 1 shows models of CO2 and H2O molecules
>| 	</fig>
>| 
>| This way, the content models aren't changed: <FIG> is still a
>| peer of <P>. But the <spot> element allows the author to suggest
>| where the figure should be anchored in the paragraph.
>| 
>| Do you think that would work?
>
>
I agree that there is a need for a truly floating figure element. 

If I'm reading this right the idea is to allow the figure to be laid out at
SPOT. If so, this method forces the browser to do an arbitrary length
lookahead to find the FIGURE definition when doing layout. 

Does </P> force a clear action beyond the end of the SPOTted FIGURE? Or can
the figure run on into the next <P>?
How about just allowing align=float on the IMG tag with the </P> not forcing
a clear past the end of a floating IMG? 
Why is it so bad to allow a FIG to be both a child and peer of <P>?

Jon Smirl, jonsm@aol.com

Received on Thursday, 13 July 1995 18:14:37 UTC