W3C

Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-128: Authors should be able to use <figure> where <img> can be used - Straw Poll for Objections

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2010-12-01 to 2010-12-08.

3 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Objections to the Change Proposal to Allow figure where img is allowed, in p in particular
  2. Objections to the Change Proposal to Treat figure as being equivalent to p or aside

1. Objections to the Change Proposal to Allow figure where img is allowed, in p in particular

We have a Change Proposal to allow <figure> where <img> is allowed, in <p> in particular. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to Allow figure where img is allowed, in p in particular
Doug Jones Semantically, a figure is a unique part of a document. Although a figure may be closely tied to associated text to reflect information or meaning, a figure is not part of that text.

As with many changes in HTML5, the <figure> element as currently defined encourages better authoring habits. It should not be changed to support poorer authoring choices of the past, as this Change Proposal implies.

In practice, a figure would most likely have associated presentation rules for its placement on a page to enhance readability.
Ian Hickson * The premise that a <figure> should on principle be allowed anywhere that an <img> is useful is flawed. Images have many uses beyond being used in
figures. For example, images can be used in sentences to represent symbols that are not available in Unicode. Such images are not figures, and it would be nonsensical to replace them with figures. Therefore the entire premise that this change proposal is based on is incorrect, which invalidates the rest of its argument.

* IMHO it is not intuitive to have to close a paragraph before a figure. Authors will expect to be able to replace <div class="figure"> with <figure>, and thus <figure> should have similar parsing rules.

* Putting a table in a paragraph makes no sense -- putting a table in a figure in a paragraph equally makes no sense. The Acid2 damage was the introduction of a quirk; the standards-mode behaviour is still the right behaviour, though, and the ideal situation would be to get rid of the quirk, not get rid of the standards-mode behaviour.

* Allowing <p><figure><pre> might lead to people abusing <figure> for its parsing rules (much like the proposal suggests doing with <object>!) in cases where authors are attempting to abuse HTML for purely presentational effects.

Henri, the writer of this proposal, admits that this entire proposal is only being proposed because of what he perceives as limitations of CSS, and that on semantic grounds, <figure> should work as currently specified. However, as the other change proposal demonstrates, these CSS limitations do not in fact exist. CSS is quite capable of obtaining Henri's desired renderings. Even if this were not true, designing one part of the Web platform around limitations of another part of the Web platform is a concrete example of the application of Conway's law. It's entirely the wrong way to solve the problem. If CSS has limitations, we should *fix them in CSS*, not in HTML.
Anne van Kesteren This proposal will only lead to confusion with cases such as <p><figure><table> versus <p><table> parsing in a woefully incompatible way. I do not think that is helpful.

2. Objections to the Change Proposal to Treat figure as being equivalent to p or aside

We have a Change Proposal to Treat <figure> as being equivalent to <p> or <aside>. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to Treat figure as being equivalent to p or aside
Doug Jones
Ian Hickson
Anne van Kesteren

More details on responses

  • Doug Jones: last responded on 1, December 2010 at 19:24 (UTC)
  • Ian Hickson: last responded on 1, December 2010 at 20:57 (UTC)
  • Anne van Kesteren: last responded on 2, December 2010 at 14:42 (UTC)

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design (preferred) or by mail to sysreq.