On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:32:35 +0600, James Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In general I think that having <img> and <imgcaption> (or whatever they
are called) enclosed by a single element is a better idea since the
increased simplicity makes rendering easier. For example, how would you
expect a browser to render this?:
<p>Foo
<img id="bar">
<p>Foobar
<p>Baz
<imgcaption for="bar">Pictures are nice!</imgcaption>
In all current UAs I guess it would render something like:
Foo
<img>
Foobar
Baz
Pictures are nice
This is exactly how I expect the above markup to be rendered. Unless the
<imgcaption> is taken out of the flow by specifying display:tooltip, it
should show where it's written. In fact, the difference between
<imgcaption> and <div> is no more than between <address> and <div>:
<imgcaption> is technically the same as <div> but conveys semantical
meaning that its content is a title for image #bar.
But I can't think of many situations where a figure's caption should be
separate from the figure itself and, from the discussion above, it seems
that some people would expect:
Foo
<img>
Pictures are nice
Foobar
Baz
No, I don't expect this. If the author wanted this, he would have written
<imgcaption> right after <img>.
Another issue to consider is the possibility of multiple images with a
single caption (this is very common in scientific papers, print
magazines, etc.). A construct like
<figure>
<img>
<img>
<img>
<imgcaption>
</figure>
might be enough to support this (the details are, I think, non-trivial);
something that requires the caption to point to exactly one image cannot.
I'm thinking of <label type="title"> as of just a fancy replacement for
the "title" attribute. In your example, I would write:
<div id="fig1">
<img>
<img>
<img>
</div>
<label for="fig1" type="title">...</label>
...probably using something more specific than <div> to group the <img>
elements.
--
Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
