Re: [whatwg] Should a figure element require a reference? (was: use cases for figure without figcaption?)

-content.html#the-figure-element On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Xaxio On 21 June 2013 15:59, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Steve, Please permit me to change the subject line since the topic no longer answers the subject

Re: [whatwg] use cases for figure without figcaption?

, they should not be in a figure? -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/ On 20 June 2013 20:46, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: pFonts come in many different varieties. The Arial font, for example, does not have serifs./p

[whatwg] Should a figure element require a reference? (was: use cases for figure without figcaption?)

spec which you referenced currently differ on figure, the proposed changes in the whatwg spec are under discussion in the html wg. -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/ On 21 June 2013 08:38, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Steve, One

Re: [whatwg] use cases for figure without figcaption?

An illustration of a font name, in its respective font? --Xaxio On Jun 20, 2013 11:24 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com wrote: What are the use cases for a figure without a figcaption ? -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/

Re: [whatwg] use cases for figure without figcaption?

://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/ On 20 June 2013 19:27, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: An illustration of a font name, in its respective font? --Xaxio On Jun 20, 2013 11:24 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.com wrote: What are the use cases for a figure without

Re: [whatwg] use cases for figure without figcaption?

5.1 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/ On 20 June 2013 20:16, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: The figures could be in a document talking about fonts, yet easily moved to the side of the page and still maintain relevance if referenced within the document. I think

Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

Good day, Let us start with a definition: es·o·ter·ic /ˌesəˈterik/ Adjective Intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. The document Simon delivered and formatted is useful to a wide range of audiences interested in HTML

Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

that the title could be something more flowing, like Differences between HTML4 and HTML(5). Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Good day, Let us start with a definition: es·o·ter·ic /ˌesəˈterik/ Adjective Intended for or likely

Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

. Hemsley gphems...@gmail.comwrote: It is my understanding that the W3C version lists HTML5 and the WHATWG version uses HTML. That was what I intended by HTML(5). I didn't mean the parentheses were included literally. Gordon On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com

Re: [whatwg] HTML differences from HTML4 document updated

. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote: 2013-05-03 21:19, Xaxio Brandish wrote: Ah. The document scope [1] explains why it uses HTML in the title as opposed to HTML5 or HTML(5). No, it only says *that* it uses HTML to refer to the W3C HTML5 specification, W3C HTML5.1 specification, and the WHATWG HTML