On 17 May 2013 19:19, Rabab Gomaa < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> 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 proposal:
> Revise the statement below and consider changing it to "the figcaption is
> omitted in favor of the caption" or have equal power for <figcaption> and
> <caption>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#the-caption-element
> When a table<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#the-table-element>;element is the only content in a
> figure<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element>;element other than the
> figcaption<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-figcaption-element>;,
> the caption<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#the-caption-element>;element should be omitted in favor of the
> figcaption<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html#the-figcaption-element>;
> .
>
> 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.
>
> Rabab
>
> >>> Steve Faulkner < <EMAIL REMOVED> > 2013-05-17 12:40 PM >>>
>
>
>
> 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."
> >>>
> >>> 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>
> >
> > > > > > > > > >
