On 17 May 2013 16:45, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Thanks, Steve.
> You wrote: "Unclear what your issue is with figure/figcaption, the
> semantics
> of the figure element is that its a grouping element."
>
> My issue is the choice of the word "figure" for this tag. I can't find any
> English dictionary reference that defines "figure" as a "group of items."
>
> The word figure has quite a few definitions and most of them involve:
> - Something to do with a numerical symbol or value amount;
> - Something to do with a person, such as their appearance or standing in
> society;
> - A symbol of something.
>
> There's no "group" concept in any of the definitions.
>
> If you want a tag that groups things, why not call it <GROUP>? Otherwise
> you might as well randomly choose any word in the dictionary to represent
> this "grouping element."
>
> <CHOCOLATE> would be just as accurate as <FIGURE>.
>
> The second issue I have is that the computer industry, especially
> programmers, takes common words and flips them upside down, using them in
> ways never intended. This doesn't help the industry. As a former college
> instructor of several programming languages and technologies, I've watched
> this confuse the heck out of my students, semester after semester.
>
> Example:
>
> HTML defined all graphics in a webpage to use the <IMG> tag. I wish a
> better
> word had been chosen because "image" is defined as a likeness of something.
> But it is broad enough that I'm willing to shoehorn every graphic on a
> webpage into the figure tag.
>
> A few years later Adobe created tagged PDFs and instead of coordinating
> their code with existing HTML tags, they decide to reinvent the wheel and
> tag every graphic in a PDF as <FIGURE>. Bad decision for 2 reasons:
> 1. It doesn't coordinate with the existing tag used by HTML.
> 2. There are many types of graphics that don't fit the definition of a
> "figure," such as a photograph of a landscape vista.
>
> W.T.F. Didn't anyone at Adobe have access to a list of HTML tags or have
> basic training in HTLM 101?
>
> And now you're telling us to use <FIGURE> as a grouping tag.
> W.T.F. Doesn't anyone on the HTML team have access to a dictionary or
> thesaurus?
>
> Visit the Oxford English Dictionary at http://www.oed.com/
> Merriam-Webster is a good all-purpose dictionary at
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/
> And if you're desperate for funds, www.dictionary.com is quite sufficient
> and free.
>
> As I said before: "Never in my editorial mind would I ever call a table a
> figure, nor the extracted poem in an HTML5 example on the W3C's website.
> Jeeze Louise, are there any professional editors at the W3C who can step in
> and say 'that's not the best word for that item'?"
>
> Now, if you decide to call this "grouping element" <CHOCOLATE>, you won't
> get any complaints out of me! <grin>
> But don't call it <FIGURE>. That's just so wrong on so many levels.
>
> -Bevi Chagnon
> (Programmer, developer, designer, writer, & editor)
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> www.PubCom.com - Trainers, Consultants, Designers, Developers.
> Print, Web, Acrobat, XML, eBooks, and U.S. Federal Section 508
> Accessibility.
> New schedule for classes and workshops coming in 2013.
>
>
