On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > or make the association implicit by using the for attribute
> > > <embed id="funnyVid" ...>
> > > <caption for="funnyVid">A funny video of a man being hit in the groin by a
> > > football</caption>
>
> That would work for the current page layouts of YouTube and Google Video.
>
> > I think what would work best for this is the <figure> element I've proposed
> > back in june:
> >
> > <figure>
> > <caption>Some caption here</caption>
> > ...
> > </figure>
> > ...
>
> That would not. (At least, not without some tricky CSS.)
Could you elaborate on that? I don't really understand why you think that.
Unless you mean just because of the order, but we could easily just allow
the caption to go at the end of the <figure> element.
Possibly because, on YouTube, at least, the caption is in a column next to the
video. It's not obvious how to make that work in the current model.
I suggest that this element behave in the opposite way from alt=:
> whereas alt= should be presented only if the image itself is *not*
> presented, the caption element should be presented only if the image
> itself *is* presented. Otherwise there would be the same problem with
> non-sequiturs in non-visual media as there is with descriptive alt=.
Agreed; spec now requires this. Not sure how to make this jive with the
idea of allowing <pre>/<ol>/etc, though; see above.
I think I disagree; I'm not sure what we gain by hiding the caption and often I
can imagine it being positively useful even without the image.
--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
