I've changed figure and details again, hopefully for the last time.
They now have unique elements for their legends:
figure
figcaption.../figcaption
...
/figure
details
summary.../summary
...
/details
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
As
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
The @caption proposal isn't for an attribute on p only, but rather
for an attribute on any element that is a child of a figure. (It's
just that most of the time using a p is most appropriate.)
Ah, OK. Well, given the
On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:58 AM, Hugh Guiney wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
It's not just rendering issues - all current browsers produce a
broken DOM
when you include legend outside of fieldset, ranging from
dropping the
legend element
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:58:32 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Hugh Guiney hugh.gui...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there a reason we can't reuse legend (or label)? I don't think
giving p an attribute
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
As currently speced, the proper usage of figure is:
figure
ddimg src=bunny.jpg alt=A Bunny/dd
dtThe Cutest Animal/dt
/figure
Apart from all that has been said about legacy parsing, leaking style in
IE, etc I would (perhaps not be the first to) add:
1. It seems quite
The original idea for using the attribute was that it could apply to a
wide range of elements, like p, div, etc. But that makes it difficult
for browsers to provide sensible default styling for captions, since
it requires carefully overriding existing defaults for so many other
elements.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
To some extent, it even makes it difficult for authors to provide reasonable
styles if they can't guarantee which elements content writers will choose
for their caption. Imagine designing a CMS template with some
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:33:28 +0100, Nikita Popov pri...@ni-po.com wrote:
There are only 2 sensible options for element choices: legend or
introducing a new element. Using dt/dd is *not* and was never a
sensible choice for figure, and the idea must be dropped.
As caption and legend have much
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Lachlan Huntlachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
To some extent, it even makes it difficult for authors to provide reasonable
styles if they can't guarantee which elements content writers will choose
for their caption. Imagine designing a CMS
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
Applying reset styles alone and making all elements look the same basically
defeats the purpose of being able to use a range of different elements, and
is very likely not what an author would ultimately want.
Heh, you
On 1 Dec 2009, at 14:33, Nikita Popov wrote:
As caption and legend have much too many backwards compatibility
issues
It's not bad I think. I've played a little with the live DOM viewer
and this seems usable:
figure
content
captiondiv class=captionfoo/div/caption
/figure
caption
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:28:32 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
As currently speced, the proper usage of figure is:
figure
ddimg src=bunny.jpg alt=A Bunny/dd
dtThe Cutest Animal/dt
/figure
Apart from all that has been said about legacy parsing,
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:36:08 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
You only need to provide styles for the elements you're using which
wouldn't work with a simple generic style such as.
figure[caption] { margin-left: 1em; font-weight: bold; }
Please, no examples where this
Is there a reason we can't reuse legend (or label)? I don't think
giving p an attribute that it can only use inside of figure is
very straightforward.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Hugh Guiney hugh.gui...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason we can't reuse legend (or label)? I don't think
giving p an attribute that it can only use inside of figure is
very straightforward.
Yes. legend is documented as having rendering issues in all current
On Dec 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Hugh Guiney hugh.gui...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there a reason we can't reuse legend (or label)? I don't think
giving p an attribute that it can only use inside of figure is
very straightforward.
Yes. legend is
As currently speced, the proper usage of figure is:
figure
ddimg src=bunny.jpg alt=A Bunny/dd
dtThe Cutest Animal/dt
/figure
Apart from all that has been said about legacy parsing, leaking style in
IE, etc I would (perhaps not be the first to) add:
1. It seems quite easy to confuse or
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
As currently speced, the proper usage of figure is:
figure
ddimg src=bunny.jpg alt=A Bunny/dd
dtThe Cutest Animal/dt
/figure
Apart from all that has been said about legacy parsing, leaking style in IE,
etc I
Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com schrieb am Mon, 30 Nov 2009
12:50:42 -0600:
Note: I would style it with figure [caption] instead, to ensure
you don't accidentally grab misplaced captions.
I would like to style captions on top differently from captions
underneath. What now ?
--
Nils
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
As currently speced, the proper usage of figure is:
figure
ddimg src=bunny.jpg alt=A Bunny/dd
dtThe Cutest Animal/dt
/figure
Apart from all that has been said about legacy parsing, leaking style in IE,
etc I
Yeah, I think this dd, dt thing isn't really intuitive. (Looks like
these two elements from definition lists are now used everywhere.)
Your proposed syntax looks more nice. But still, why do we need the
figure-wrapper? It would be cleaner syntax, in my eyes, if you could
easily specify an
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:50:42 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
The only thing you have to answer is what to do if there are multiple
@caption elements in the figure. I suggest taking either the first
or last; the exact choice is pretty much arbitrary.
Make it invalid and
Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com schrieb am Mon, 30 Nov 2009
13:00:00 -0600:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com schrieb am Mon, 30 Nov 2009
12:50:42 -0600:
Note: I would style
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Nikita Popov pri...@ni-po.com wrote:
Your proposed syntax looks more nice. But still, why do we need the
figure-wrapper? It would be cleaner syntax, in my eyes, if you could easily
specify an element that is related as a caption to another element. Could
look
Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com schrieb am Mon, 30 Nov 2009
13:34:27 -0600:
Apologies, but I have no idea what you're talking about and can only
assume that we're both misunderstanding each other. […]
You were right. Mea culpa, I apparently left my sense of logic at the
door.
--
Nils
On 01/12/2009, at 6:28 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
People will very commonly use a wrapper in any case, for styling the
figure+caption together. For example, putting a border and background
on it and positioning it.
I agree with the inclusion of a wrapper in that in the standard use-case the
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Kit Grose k...@iqmultimedia.com.au wrote:
Is there a semantic reason for p caption rather than simply repurposing the
caption element itself? It seems to me that captions in this context are
conceptually identical to captions for tables?
Not a semantic
27 matches
Mail list logo
