- From: (wrong string) äper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:14:45 +0100
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
Bert Bos: > > It seems to me that associating a caption with an image is such a > fundamental operation, that it should be expressed by semantic > mark-up, rather than by visual proximity (or other purely stylistic > means). I agree that this is one of the most missed features of current HTML. The minimal content model for the 'object' element is (caption?, (PCDATA | Flow | param)*), thus it's already possible--in the current draft--to caption an image with the prefered element for image inclusion. > <div class=figure> > <p><img src=...> > <p class=caption>... > </div> I once tried to justify that Ruby could be used for this. <http://webdesign.crissov.de/ruby-hack> (German, but it's the code and the examples that matter.) It turned out that the best working solution with all Ruby elements used adds about as much code as one- or two-cell tables. > but that DIV.figure is no more than a convention and any parser would > have to know that the author is me in order to understand that the > text and the image have any special relation. That's the [only] advantage of using Ruby for this. > I think Google's image search could be significantly improved > if its robots knew how to recognize captions. They should at least take the title attribute into account. And people should correctly use it for now. > So I'm asking that XHTML not only generalizes the SRC attribute, but > also the CAPTION element: What about 'param'? > PS. It is not clear how the above could be handled with CSS. The same like the current 'caption' element for 'table' is handled? Christoph
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 12:14:52 UTC