This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 20754 - Why do we need "figcaption" if we already have "caption"? "caption" is currently supposed to be inside a "table", but it could be redefined for use in other containers like "figure".
Summary: Why do we need "figcaption" if we already have "caption"? "caption" is curren...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-01-24 10:14 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2013-03-19 23:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2013-01-24 10:14:08 UTC 
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#the-figcaption-element
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#the-figcaption-element

Comment:
Why do we need "figcaption" if we already have "caption"? "caption" is
currently supposed to be inside a "table", but it could be redefined for use
in other containers like "figure".

Posted from: 86.32.126.47
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/18.0
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2013-03-19 23:47:29 UTC 
Sadly, we can't use <caption>, due to backwards-compatibility constraints (it has crazy parsing rules that make it only work in tables).

We could have reused <legend>, though even that was a bit funky for a while. But it ended up that this was unpopular for reasons I forget, and so we changed to using different element names.