Great example.
(http://www.radio-canada.ca/arts-spectacles/PlusArts/2007/03/13/003-viacom_youtube.asp)
My reading is that one would use <figure> as the block-level parent of
the second image, where the first image could happily be inline.
Michel Fortin wrote:
Le 2007-03-14 à 16:24, Lachlan Hunt a écrit :
Even if figure were allowed to be used without legend, what would be
the point? That would be no better than just adding an extraneous
wrapper <div> around the object just to work around the content model
restrictions.
If <figure> denotes illustrative content, your image then becomes an
illustration of the subject in the surrounding text. Otherwise, you
have no way to distinguish images which are meant to be read as part
of the text -- mathematic formulas embedded as images for instance --
and those which are more detached from the prose -- a photo
illustrating the text's subject.
- - -
I'd like to submit this example of a news article having two pictures;
both are styled the same, they both have the same purpose
(illustration), yet one has no caption while the other has one.
<http://www.radio-canada.ca/arts-spectacles/PlusArts/2007/03/13/003-viacom_youtube.asp>
If we say the second picture is a figure, how can we reasonably say
the first one is not? A table does not need a caption to be a table,
and I don't think a figure needs a caption to be a figure: it just
needs to be an illustration of the surrounding subject.
Michel Fortin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.michelf.com/
