My concern:
When figure contains only a table element, <caption> is omitted in favor of <figcaption>.
When coding in a government environment where data tables are frequently used, I see having different ways of coding table (sometimes with caption, other time with figcaption) confusing. It might also increase the chance of having failures of accessibility.
My arguments:
- <caption> is the original element created for table titles.
- Maintaining one way of coding the table will prevent confusion when <figure> is used as a grouping element for table with footnotes.
Figure is implemented and has been in the spec for a number of years
What is your proposal for changing it?
As I said previously if you or anyone has an issue with the HTML spec please file a bug.
That way the issue can be tracked and responded to.
But please leave your attitude at the door as it is not helpful or contructive.
Regards
Stevef
On 17 May 2013, at 17:25, "Chagnon | PubCom" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Steve wrote: "from wikipedia:"
>
> Seriously?
> Wikipedia?
>
> Steve wrote: "as far as name clashes go, the horse has left the stable."
>
> I just spent 3 weeks at our family's horse farm.
> Seriously.
> When you do something stupid like leaving the barn door open, you go out and
> bring the horse back.
>
> -Bevi Chagnon
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 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
>
> Hi bevi,
> from wikipedia:
> "a figure in writing is a type of floating block (text, table, or graphic
> separate from the main text)"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure#Writing
> as far as name clashes go, the horse has left the stable.
> --
> Regards
> SteveF
>
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>;
>
> 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&compone
>> nt=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." ( '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
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> -
>>
>> >> >> list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>
> > > messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> > >
