Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bill Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Colin Lieberman" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michel Fortin" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level



Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

Strictly speaking HTML4 does not dictate inline nature of the image.

The only place I've found is this:

"The IMG element has no content; it is *usually* replaced inline by the 
image

designated by the src attribute." [1]

This phrase use word "usually" that imply exceptions
other than float cases. This is how I read this but I am not sure about
it.


No, I believe the full quote makes it clear that float cases *are* the 
exception to inline presentation:


"The IMG element has no content; it is usually replaced inline by the 
image designated by the src attribute, the exception being for left or 
right-aligned images that are "floated" out of line."


IMG elements do not meet the distinctions for block-level as described in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#didx-inline


Thanks, Bill, for the clarification.

I think that word 'usually' is redundant there then.

At least it is not a common wording:
"usually A but sometimes B" makes sense but
"usually A except of  B" from view of
formal logic or fuzzy set math do
not cover the full set (with 1.0 possibility).
This is why I found it a bit confusing.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com





--
Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://accessibleinter.net/

Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level

[Bill Mason]

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

Strictly speaking HTML4 does not dictate inline nature of the image.

The only place I've found is this:

"The IMG element has no content; it is *usually* replaced inline by the 
image

designated by the src attribute." [1]

This phrase use word "usually" that imply exceptions
other than float cases. This is how I read this but I am not sure about
it.


No, I believe the full quote makes it clear that float cases *are* the 
exception to inline presentation:


"The IMG element has no content; it is usually replaced inline by the 
image designated by the src attribute, the exception being for left or 
right-aligned images that are "floated" out of line."


IMG elements do not meet the distinctions for block-level as described 
in http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#didx-inline


--
Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://accessibleinter.net/

Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

- Original Message - 
From: "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Colin Lieberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michel Fortin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level


I have no problems with images remaining inline only.


I think all embedding elements, including img, should be allowed to be 
used in the same places.  I consider it a mistake that HTML4 allows object 
to be used almost anywhere, but img only inline.




Strictly speaking HTML4 does not dictate inline nature of the image.

The only place I've found is this:

"The IMG element has no content; it is *usually* replaced inline by the 
image

designated by the src attribute." [1]

This phrase use word "usually" that imply exceptions
other than float cases. This is how I read this but I am not sure about
it.

BTW. Does it make sense for me to create a map of all HTML5 elements
that will define them in terms of  display-model and display-role [2]?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-box/#L706

Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level

[Lachlan Hunt]

Colin Lieberman wrote:

For the given use case:


   
   


I think  is in appropriate. The spec says: 'The |figure| element 
represents a paragraph consisting of embedded content and a caption.' 
and from a semantic point of view, figure seems to connote an illustration 
or explanatory image.


I thought of using figure, but it currently requires legend to provide a 
caption, but in this case there is no caption.  Even if figure were 
allowed to be used without legend, what would be the point?  That would 
be no better than just adding an extraneous wrapper  around the 
object just to work around the content model restrictions.



I have no problems with images remaining inline only.


I think all embedding elements, including img, should be allowed to be 
used in the same places.  I consider it a mistake that HTML4 allows 
object to be used almost anywhere, but img only inline.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level

[Colin Lieberman]

For the given use case:


   
   


I think  is in appropriate. The spec says: 'The |figure 
| element 
represents a paragraph 
 
consisting of embedded content and a caption.' and from a semantic point 
of view, figure seems to connote an illustration or explanatory image.


In the use case - a company logo - h1 is IMO important markup: the 
company logo is the document heading. I have no problems with images 
remaining inline only.


Colin Lieberman

Michel Fortin wrote:

Le 2007-03-14 à 1:23, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :


Hi,
  The spec currently defines most embedding elements (img, iframe, 
embed, object, video and canvas) as strictly inline level and thus 
only allows them to be used in contexts where strictly inline level 
content may be used.


I think these elements should be defined as structured inline-level 
elements.  When used in block level contexts, they should represent 
paragraphs.


You're right that it's often a little silly to have an image alone in 
its own paragraph. But maybe we could use  for these cases:



  


Ok, this is not conformant with the current spec since it's missing a 
legend, but in my opinion it should be allowed.



Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/

Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level

[Michel Fortin]

Le 2007-03-14 à 1:23, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :


Hi,
  The spec currently defines most embedding elements (img, iframe,  
embed, object, video and canvas) as strictly inline level and thus  
only allows them to be used in contexts where strictly inline level  
content may be used.


I think these elements should be defined as structured inline-level  
elements.  When used in block level contexts, they should represent  
paragraphs.


You're right that it's often a little silly to have an image alone in  
its own paragraph. But maybe we could use  for these cases:



  


Ok, this is not conformant with the current spec since it's missing a  
legend, but in my opinion it should be allowed.



Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/

Re: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level

[Andrew Fedoniouk]

- Original Message - 
From: "Lachlan Hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: [whatwg] Embedding Elements Should be Structured Inline-Level



Hi,
  The spec currently defines most embedding elements (img, iframe, embed, 
object, video and canvas) as strictly inline level and thus only allows 
them to be used in contexts where strictly inline level content may be 
used.


I think these elements should be defined as structured inline-level 
elements.  When used in block level contexts, they should represent 
paragraphs.


The specific use case I have come across which requires this is something 
like the following.  (Although, the site I'm currently building is HTML4 
and using  instead.)







In this particular case, it doesn't make sense to add an extra  or 
 around the object just to get around the contextual usage 
restriction.


HTML4 currently allows object and iframe to be used where block level 
elements are allowed, and I don't think HTML5 should restrict that.




I would add to the list also , ,  -
all active elements that are mutiline by their nature.

But I am not sure about "HTML4 currently allows object and
iframe to be used where block level elements are allowed".

AFAIR there is no mechanism that allows to switch %flow nature
(display-model in CSS3) of the elements in HTML.

It would be nice to have something that will tell parser what
are these object: inlines or blocks so it can produce optimal
rendering structure.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com