E-mail List Archives

Thread: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?

for

Number of posts in this thread: 14 (In chronological order)

From: Rabab Gomaa
Date: Thu, May 16 2013 8:53AM
Subject: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
No previous message | Next message →

Hello,

How to code table footnotes in HTML 5?
- HTML 5 example specifies <figure> to code table footnotes. However, we prefer not to use <figure> for data tables. We use <table> and <caption>instead.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-idioms.html#footnotes.
- On the other hand, WCAG working group WIKI has a failure of 1.3.1 for not including footnotes in TFOOT. [Bruce].
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/HTML5
- In WebAIM thread (2011), Jared mentioned that TFOOT is not for footnotes.
http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread=4985
- WET proposes the use of definition list for footnotes however the solution not mention data tables and how table and its footnotes can be combined together.
https://github.com/wet-boew/wet-boew/wiki/Footnotes

1) Is TFOOT the right thing to use for footnotes?

2) If TFOOT should not be used for footnotes, then I propose wrapping table and its footnotes with a <section> and coding the footnotes in definition list. What do you think? For example:


<section>
<table>
<!--TABLE HERE-->
</table>
<div role="note">
<section>
<h2 class="wb-invisible">Footnotes</h2>
<dl>
<!--FOOTNOTES HERE-->
</dl>
</section>
</div>
</section>


Rabab Gomaa

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Thu, May 16 2013 10:30AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.

From: Rabab Gomaa
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 6:33AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Jared,

Do you still see TFOOT is not for footnotes? WCAG working group WIKI has a failure of 1.3.1 for not including footnotes in TFOOT.
http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread=4985

Rabab

>>> Rabab Gomaa 2013-05-16 10:53 AM >>>
Hello,

How to code table footnotes in HTML 5?
- HTML 5 example specifies <figure> to code table footnotes. However, we prefer not to use <figure> for data tables. We use <table> and <caption>instead.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-idioms.html#footnotes.
- On the other hand, WCAG working group WIKI has a failure of 1.3.1 for not including footnotes in TFOOT. [Bruce].
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/HTML5
- In WebAIM thread (2011), Jared mentioned that TFOOT is not for footnotes.
http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread=4985
- WET proposes the use of definition list for footnotes however the solution not mention data tables and how table and its footnotes can be combined together.
https://github.com/wet-boew/wet-boew/wiki/Footnotes

1) Is TFOOT the right thing to use for footnotes?

2) If TFOOT should not be used for footnotes, then I propose wrapping table and its footnotes with a <section> and coding the footnotes in definition list. What do you think? For example:


<section>
<table>
<!--TABLE HERE-->
</table>
<div role="note">
<section>
<h2 class="wb-invisible">Footnotes</h2>
<dl>
<!--FOOTNOTES HERE-->
</dl>
</section>
</div>
</section>


Rabab Gomaa

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 6:49AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

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=HTML5%20spec&priority=P3
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/
--

Regards

SteveF



On 16 May 2013 17:30, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 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.
>
>
> > > >

From: Rabab Gomaa
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 7:20AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Steve,

I am thinking of div instead of figure to group table with footnotes. What do you think?
<div role="group">
<table>
<!--TABLE HERE-->
</table>
<div role="note">
<section>
<h2 class="wb-invisible">Footnotes</h2>
<dl>
<!--FOOTNOTES HERE-->
</dl>
</section>
</div>
</div>
>>> Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 2013-05-17 8:49 AM >>>
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=HTML5%20spec&priority=P3
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/
--

Regards

SteveF



On 16 May 2013 17:30, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 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.
>
>
> > > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 7:38AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Rabab,

it is difficult to say without actually seeing the content in context, but
it looks fine

but here is another possibility:
note when a <header> or <footer> element is inside a sectioning element it
is scoped to that section. Also as far as the role is concerned <header>
and <footer> are only assigned landmark roles when they are direct
descendants of the <body> elements otherwise they have a group role.

<section>
<hx>heading for section</hx>
<table>
<!--TABLE HERE-->
</table>
<footer>
<h2 class="wb-invisible">Footnotes</h2>
<dl>
<!--FOOTNOTES HERE-->
</dl>
</footer>
</section>



--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>;


On 17 May 2013 14:20, Rabab Gomaa < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> I am thinking of div instead of figure to group table with footnotes. What
> do you think?
> <div role="group">
> <table>
> <!--TABLE HERE-->
> </table>
> <div role="note">
> <section>
> <h2 class="wb-invisible">Footnotes</h2>
> <dl>
> <!--FOOTNOTES HERE-->
> </dl>
> </section>
> </div>
> </div>
> >>> Steve Faulkner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 2013-05-17 8:49 AM >>>
> 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=HTML5%20spec&priority=P3
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
>
>
>
> On 16 May 2013 17:30, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - -
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 9:45AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 9:52AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> > > >

From: Steve Green
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 10:01AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

Who needs the Oxford English Dictionary when we have an authoritative source like Wikipedia?

But do we really need to let all the other horses out of the stable?

I'm with Bevi on this. The fact that bad choices were made in the past is no reason to keep on making them.

Steve Green

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Steve Faulkner
Sent: 17 May 2013 16:53
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?

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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 10:25AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 10:40AM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
> > > messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> > >

From: James Nurthen
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 12:00PM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

> - On the other hand, WCAG working group WIKI has a failure of 1.3.1 for
> not including footnotes in TFOOT. [Bruce].
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/HTML5


Note this is a wiki page which lists potential techniques which may or may
not be developed. I think it is clear that TFOOT is not to be used for
footnotes for a table, but instead for column footers/summaries/totals.
Even for this case I think creating a failure would create a lot of
unnecessary work for developers who have column summaries/totals without
adding any accessibility gain. For this reason I have removed this from the
wiki above.

From: Rabab Gomaa
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 12:19PM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
> > > messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> > >

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Fri, May 17 2013 12:55PM
Subject: Re: Table footnotes <tfoot>, <figure> or <section> ?
← Previous message | No next message

Hi Rabab, thanks this sounds reasonable I have filed a bug on the spec
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id"074

you can add yourself to the cc list (need to create a bugzilla user account
first)



--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>;


On 17 May 2013 19:19, Rabab Gomaa < = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>
> > > > > > messages to = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > > > > > > > > >