Re: [whatwg] The IMG element, proposing a CAPTION attribute
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:52:41 +0600, Steve Runyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One minor point I would clarify: Alexey, you stated that label for=XX type=title would replace the title attribute. I assume you meant that it should *supplement* it, since you wouldn't want to preclude its use or mess with backward compatibility. It would replace the title attribute from the semantic POV only. For example, various semantic extractors which know about label type=title should use its content instead of the title attribute when they need to know the title of something. For those which don't yet know about label type=title, the title attribute will provide reasonable fallback. -- Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Re: [whatwg] The IMG element, proposing a CAPTION attribute
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 03:27:31 +0600, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: label for=fig1 type=title.../label label is not good, because it is reasonable to style form control labels the way the platform styles labels, but the styling may not be appropriate for figure captions. Also, the for attribute is now supposed to refer to a form control. I agree that reusing label can cause problems, so I'd like to find a brand new name, too. I think it is better to introduce a figcaption or something than to confuse what label is. I don't like figcaption for two reasons. First, it contains the word caption while I propose using the new element in title, alt, and label roles at least. Second, it contains the word figure, but I think this can be more generic and work for other elements which have %Text attributes. Maybe title-text, alt-text and label-text for each of the three purposes? -- Alexey Feldgendler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Re: [whatwg] The IMG element, proposing a CAPTION attribute
Le 23 nov. 2006 à 3:32, Alexey Feldgendler a écrit : Anyway, caption is presentational. Oh, please. If caption is presentational, then paragraph and table are as much, if not more. According to my dictionary: paragraph a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering. table a set of facts or figures systematically displayed, esp. in columns. caption a title or brief explanation appended to an article, illustration, cartoon, or poster. If there is a definition in this list which doesn't suggest some kind of visual presentation, it's the caption. Surely you have a different definition than me. The semantic relation between a caption and its image, or figure, should be exactly what is defined above: a title or a brief explanation. (Definitions from the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition) Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.michelf.com/
[whatwg] Feed autodiscovery draft may be resurrected
Regarding link rel values: The Atom WG is considering resurrecting the feed autodiscovery draft. The email thread starts at: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19075.html -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
[whatwg] Handling of illegal byte-sequences (typically in UTF-8)
Section 8.1.4: Bytes that are not valid UTF-8 sequences must be interpreted as [...] U+FFFD Section 9.2.2: Bytes or sequences of bytes [...] that could not be converted to Unicode characters must be converted to U+FFFD If I read this correctly, section 8.1.4 requires that an illegal UTF-8 sequence like F2 BF BF (the three first bytes of a four-byte sequence, obviously not followed by a continuation byte) be converted into exactly three U+FFFD characters (one for each byte), whereas section 9.2.2 also allows one single replacement character (and possibly even two) in this case (and permits an arbitrary number n of repetitions of the three-byte sequence to be replaced by any number of U+FFFD characters between 1 and 3n). I realise that the underspecification in section 9.2.2 may well be intentional, given that this section is not limited to UTF-8, but (quite possibly depending on the handling chosen) this can (more or less easily) be expressed in such a way that it applies to any encoding. Alternatively, a reference to an authoritative source would of course fulfil the purpose in the particular case of UTF-8 (if such a document can be found). [Currently, an alert reader might infer that the treatment indicated in section 8.1.4 would be preferable also in section 9.2.2, but such inference for consistency can hardly be expected.] -- Ãistein E. Andersen
Re: [whatwg] The IMG element, proposing a CAPTION attribute
Alexey Feldgendler wrote: On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 03:27:31 +0600, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: label for=fig1 type=title.../label label is not good, because it is reasonable to style form control labels the way the platform styles labels, but the styling may not be appropriate for figure captions. Also, the for attribute is now supposed to refer to a form control. I agree that reusing label can cause problems, so I'd like to find a brand new name, too. Agreed, since a label and a caption are not semantically equivalent. I think it is better to introduce a figcaption or something than to confuse what label is. I don't like figcaption for two reasons. First, it contains the word caption while I propose using the new element in title, alt, and label roles at least. I don't see a figure caption as being semantically the same as any of these. Also, a caption might refer to or describe multiple images. Second, it contains the word figure, but I think this can be more generic and work for other elements which have %Text attributes. I think we have two separate issues here. You're trying to address a valid concern, but it has nothing to do with figures and figure captions, and there's no reason to avoid markup for figures just because we want to address the limitations of attributes like |title| and |alt|. Maybe title-text, [...] The |title| attribute is supposed to provide advisory information, so why not advisory or adv? [...] alt-text [...] Huh? Why not just alternate or alt??? | img id=blah [...]alt for=blahcontent/alt This could be combined with the |data| attribute for better fallback: | img id=blah [...] alt=simple content | alt for=blah data=AltContent.xhtml/alt and label-text for each of the three purposes? The only thing that you'd use label-text for is optgroup, since |label| for option is supposed to be a shorter form of the contents of the element. I don't think that group names for option elements is a sufficient use case to justify this element.
