ISSUE-90: Tighten the focus and allowable content in the figure element

figure

Tighten the focus and allowable content in the figure element

State:
CLOSED
Product:
HTML 5 spec
Raised by:
Shelley Powers
Opened on:
2010-01-08
Description:
Currently the HTML5 specification has an overly broad definition about what can
be allowed in a figure element:

"The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code
listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the document, but
that could, without affecting the flow of the document, be moved away from that
primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated pages, or to an
appendix."

This is counter to understandings about figure in other businesses and
environments, where figures are a graphic of some form. In addition, this
provides a confusing parallel in functionality between figure and aside, enough
so that people are going to have a difficult time knowing which is which, and
when to use one over the other. In fact, with this parallelism, we don't need
both.

All assumptions I have read on figure is people assume the element will contain
a reference to an image of some form and a caption. Yet caption is optional,
and it sounds like anything can be included in figure. Your examples show a
poem, a code block, in addition to an image.

The figure element either should be pulled completely, in favor of the aside
element, or it needs to have a tighter focus in its definition. It should
consist of a graphic element, which could be an svg element, a mathml element,
an img, an object, or, possibly, a video. It should then have one other
element, which will be the caption. Since this element won't be a svg, mathml,
img, object, or video element, it could be anything, including just a regular
paragraph. In fact, a regular element styled using CSS would be the best
option.

This change would remove any confusion about this element, and there will be
confusion. It would also eliminate the problem with having to create a special
caption element, just for figure, as discussed in Issue 83.

We would be better off without the element at all, and continuing to use the
elements we have, then to use an element that has a definition that contradicts
assumptions, given its name. And removal of the element entirely could be one
of the change proposals attached to this as an issue.

Change Proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removefigure

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [the-figure-element]
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Re: hypothetical question on longdesc (from laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com on 2012-03-20)
  2. Re: hypothetical question on longdesc (from laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com on 2012-03-20)
  3. Re: Request for editing guidance (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-06-10)
  4. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-06-03 (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-06-02)
  5. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-06-02)
  6. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element (from xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no on 2010-06-02)
  7. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element (from xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no on 2010-06-02)
  8. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-90: Removing the figure Element (from xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no on 2010-06-02)
  9. Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element (from shelleyp@burningbird.net on 2010-06-01)
  10. Working Group Decision on ISSUE-90: Removing the figure Element (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-06-01)
  11. RE: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-05-27 (from adrianba@microsoft.com on 2010-05-27)
  12. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-05-27 (from faulkner.steve@gmail.com on 2010-05-27)
  13. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-05-27 (from laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com on 2010-05-27)
  14. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-05-27 (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-05-26)
  15. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from 1981km@gmail.com on 2010-05-20)
  16. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-05-20: Surveys close, Publishing new Working Drafts (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-05-19)
  17. RE: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from LMM@acm.org on 2010-05-19)
  18. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-05-19)
  19. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2010-05-19)
  20. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-05-19)
  21. minutes, 2010-05-13 HTML WG telcon (from mike@w3.org on 2010-05-14)
  22. World-readable issue survey results (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-05-13)
  23. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-05-12)
  24. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-05-12)
  25. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-05-12)
  26. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-05-12)
  27. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-05-12)
  28. {agenda} HTML WG telecon 2010-05-13: Action items, surveys, Task Force reports (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-05-12)
  29. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-05-12)
  30. Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-05-12)
  31. ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-05-12)
  32. RE: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-05-06: Action items, issues, decision policy, calls, surveys, publishing - minutes (from adrianba@microsoft.com on 2010-05-06)
  33. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-05-06: Action items, issues, decision policy, calls, surveys, publishing (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-05-05)
  34. HTML-A11Y Task Force Recommendation: ISSUES-90, 91, 93, 95, 96, & 97 (from janina@rednote.net on 2010-05-03)
  35. RE: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-29: Action items, new issues, Task Force reports - minutes of the meeting (from adrianba@microsoft.com on 2010-04-29)
  36. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-29: Action items, new issues, Task Force reports (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-28)
  37. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-22)
  38. RE: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from jfoliot@stanford.edu on 2010-04-22)
  39. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-04-22)
  40. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-22)
  41. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-22)
  42. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-04-22)
  43. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-22)
  44. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-22)
  45. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-22)
  46. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-22)
  47. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-21)
  48. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-21)
  49. Re: Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-21)
  50. Zero-edit Change Proposal for ISSUE-90 figure, ISSUE-91 aside, ISSUE-93 details, ISSUE-95 hidden, ISSUE-96 progress, and ISSUE-97 meter (from hober0@gmail.com on 2010-04-21)
  51. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-22: Action items, issues, decision policy, A11Y recommendations, polyglot spec (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-04-21)
  52. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-22: Action items, issues, decision policy, A11Y recommendations, polyglot spec (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-04-21)
  53. Fwd: HTML-A11Y Task Force Recommendation: ISSUES-90, 91, 93, 95, 96, & 97 (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-04-21)
  54. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-04-12)
  55. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from jeremy@adactio.com on 2010-04-12)
  56. Minutes of HTML WG meeting, Apr 8 2010 (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-04-08)
  57. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from hober0@gmail.com on 2010-04-07)
  58. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-08: calls for proposals, issue status (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-07)
  59. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-06)
  60. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-06)
  61. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-06)
  62. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-06)
  63. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2010-04-06)
  64. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-06)
  65. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-04-06)
  66. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-04-06)
  67. Re: ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-06)
  68. ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-93, ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSSUE-97: (new semantic elements/attributes) - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-06)
  69. Re: ISSUE-90 Change Proposal (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-06)
  70. Re: Removal of other semantic elements (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-04-04)
  71. Re: Removal of other semantic elements (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-04)
  72. Re: Removal of other semantic elements (from faulkner.steve@gmail.com on 2010-04-04)
  73. Re: Removal of other semantic elements (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-02)
  74. Re: Removal of other semantic elements (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-04-02)
  75. Re: Removal of other semantic elements (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-04-02)
  76. RE: Removal of other semantic elements (from jfoliot@stanford.edu on 2010-04-02)
  77. Removal of other semantic elements (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2010-04-02)
  78. [minutes] 2010-04-01 HTML Teleconference (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-04-01)
  79. Re: Change proposals uploaded to Wiki - URLs, suggestions on Issue 92 table (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-31)
  80. ISSUE-90 Change Proposal (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-31)
  81. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-01: action items, decision policy update, issue status (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-30)
  82. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-01: action items, decision policy update, issue status (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-03-30)
  83. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-04-01: action items, decision policy update, issue status (from Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com on 2010-03-30)
  84. [minutes] 20100325 HTML teleconference (from plh@w3.org on 2010-03-30)
  85. ISSUE-90 and ISSUE-91 have changed focus of change proposals (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-29)
  86. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-03-25: decision policy, issue status, updates from meetings, task force reports (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-24)
  87. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-03-25: decision policy, issue status, updates from meetings, task force reports (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-03-24)
  88. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-22)
  89. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  90. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  91. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-22)
  92. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  93. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-22)
  94. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  95. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  96. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  97. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-22)
  98. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from hober0@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  99. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  100. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from hober0@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  101. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from jackalmage@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  102. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-22)
  103. Re: ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-22)
  104. ISSUE-90 background documentation on allowing any flow content in figure (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-03-21)
  105. Re: Breakdown of issues (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-03-12)
  106. Breakdown of issues (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-03-12)
  107. Extension granted on some Change Proposals (from mjs@apple.com on 2010-01-27)
  108. Re: {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-14: AIs, CfC/CfPs, TFs, plus: heartbeat docs (from shelley.just@gmail.com on 2010-01-13)
  109. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2010-01-14: AIs, CfC/CfPs, TFs, plus: heartbeat docs (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-01-13)
  110. ISSUE-90 figure - Chairs Solicit Proposals (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2010-01-13)
  111. [Bug 8404] Refocus the figure element back to being a figure (from bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org on 2010-01-08)
  112. ISSUE-90 (figure): Tighten the focus and allowable content in the figure element [HTML 5 spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2010-01-08)

Related notes:

Change Proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removefigure

Laura Carlson, 10 May 2010, 13:02:14

Working Group Decision on ISSUE-90: Removing the figure Element
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0002.html

Laura Carlson, 3 Jun 2010, 17:53:28

Changelog:

Created issue 'Tighten the focus and allowable content in the figure element' nickname figure owned by Shelley Powers on product HTML 5 spec, description 'Currently the HTML5 specification has an overly broad definition about what can
be allowed in a figure element:

"The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code
listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the document, but
that could, without affecting the flow of the document, be moved away from that
primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated pages, or to an
appendix."

This is counter to understandings about figure in other businesses and
environments, where figures are a graphic of some form. In addition, this
provides a confusing parallel in functionality between figure and aside, enough
so that people are going to have a difficult time knowing which is which, and
when to use one over the other. In fact, with this parallelism, we don't need
both.

All assumptions I have read on figure is people assume the element will contain
a reference to an image of some form and a caption. Yet caption is optional,
and it sounds like anything can be included in figure. Your examples show a
poem, a code block, in addition to an image.

The figure element either should be pulled completely, in favor of the aside
element, or it needs to have a tighter focus in its definition. It should
consist of a graphic element, which could be an svg element, a mathml element,
an img, an object, or, possibly, a video. It should then have one other
element, which will be the caption. Since this element won't be a svg, mathml,
img, object, or video element, it could be anything, including just a regular
paragraph. In fact, a regular element styled using CSS would be the best
option.

This change would remove any confusion about this element, and there will be
confusion. It would also eliminate the problem with having to create a special
caption element, just for figure, as discussed in Issue 83.

We would be better off without the element at all, and continuing to use the
elements we have, then to use an element that has a definition that contradicts
assumptions, given its name. And removal of the element entirely could be one
of the change proposals attached to this as an issue.
' non-public

Shelley Powers, 8 Jan 2010, 17:06:08

Status changed to 'open'

Sam Ruby, 12 Feb 2010, 20:20:32

Description changed to 'Currently the HTML5 specification has an overly broad definition about what can
be allowed in a figure element:

"The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code
listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the document, but
that could, without affecting the flow of the document, be moved away from that
primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated pages, or to an
appendix."

This is counter to understandings about figure in other businesses and
environments, where figures are a graphic of some form. In addition, this
provides a confusing parallel in functionality between figure and aside, enough
so that people are going to have a difficult time knowing which is which, and
when to use one over the other. In fact, with this parallelism, we don't need
both.

All assumptions I have read on figure is people assume the element will contain
a reference to an image of some form and a caption. Yet caption is optional,
and it sounds like anything can be included in figure. Your examples show a
poem, a code block, in addition to an image.

The figure element either should be pulled completely, in favor of the aside
element, or it needs to have a tighter focus in its definition. It should
consist of a graphic element, which could be an svg element, a mathml element,
an img, an object, or, possibly, a video. It should then have one other
element, which will be the caption. Since this element won't be a svg, mathml,
img, object, or video element, it could be anything, including just a regular
paragraph. In fact, a regular element styled using CSS would be the best
option.

This change would remove any confusion about this element, and there will be
confusion. It would also eliminate the problem with having to create a special
caption element, just for figure, as discussed in Issue 83.

We would be better off without the element at all, and continuing to use the
elements we have, then to use an element that has a definition that contradicts
assumptions, given its name. And removal of the element entirely could be one
of the change proposals attached to this as an issue.

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [the-figure-element]'

Shelley Powers, 12 Feb 2010, 23:39:16

Description changed to 'Currently the HTML5 specification has an overly broad definition about what can
be allowed in a figure element:

"The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code
listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the document, but
that could, without affecting the flow of the document, be moved away from that
primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated pages, or to an
appendix."

This is counter to understandings about figure in other businesses and
environments, where figures are a graphic of some form. In addition, this
provides a confusing parallel in functionality between figure and aside, enough
so that people are going to have a difficult time knowing which is which, and
when to use one over the other. In fact, with this parallelism, we don't need
both.

All assumptions I have read on figure is people assume the element will contain
a reference to an image of some form and a caption. Yet caption is optional,
and it sounds like anything can be included in figure. Your examples show a
poem, a code block, in addition to an image.

The figure element either should be pulled completely, in favor of the aside
element, or it needs to have a tighter focus in its definition. It should
consist of a graphic element, which could be an svg element, a mathml element,
an img, an object, or, possibly, a video. It should then have one other
element, which will be the caption. Since this element won't be a svg, mathml,
img, object, or video element, it could be anything, including just a regular
paragraph. In fact, a regular element styled using CSS would be the best
option.

This change would remove any confusion about this element, and there will be
confusion. It would also eliminate the problem with having to create a special
caption element, just for figure, as discussed in Issue 83.

We would be better off without the element at all, and continuing to use the
elements we have, then to use an element that has a definition that contradicts
assumptions, given its name. And removal of the element entirely could be one
of the change proposals attached to this as an issue.

Change Proposal:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/removefigure

HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [the-figure-element]'

Laura Carlson, 10 May 2010, 13:02:14

Status changed to 'closed'

Sam Ruby, 6 Jun 2010, 15:02:01


Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chairs, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $