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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Steve Faulkner
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 8:49 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
>
> Hi Bevi,
> I am one of the editors of the HTML spec [1]
>
> Anybody can file a bug [2] against the HTML spec or send an email to the
> public html comments list [3] if they have constructive input.
>
> Unclear what your issue is with figure/figcaption, the semantics of the
> figure element is that its a grouping element. figcaption allows a
> programmatically associated caption to be added. images are the obvious use
> case but others are also covered. If you don't like the idea of using for
> content other than images then don't.
>
> [1] HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>;
> [2]
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=HTML%20WG&component=HTM
> L5%20spec&priority=P3
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/
> --
> Regards
> SteveF
>
> On 16 May 2013 17:30, Chagnon | PubCom < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> > Rabab wrote: "...- HTML 5 example specifies <figure> to code table
> > footnotes. However, we prefer not to use <figure> for data tables. ...
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-idioms.html#footnotes."
> >
> > Can't answer your question Rabab, but it brings up another related issue:
> > the use of one term <FIGURE> in 2 different ways.
> >
> > In PDFs, all graphical images are tagged with <FIGURE>.
> >
> > But in HTML 5, it's used for any content, not just graphics, that are
> > related to the main story content.
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element
> > "some flow content, optionally with a caption, that is self-contained
> > and is typically referenced as a single unit from the main flow of the
> document."
> >
> > The specific reference above for tables reads: "A figure element is
> > used to give a single legend to the combination of the table and its
> footnotes."
> >
> > 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"?
> >
> > It would be so helpful to all communities, web developers and document
> > specialists, if the power players with the W3C could coordinate their
> > use of the same tag.
> >
> > -Bevi Chagnon
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> > > >
