This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
hello spec says: > The figure element represents a unit of content, optionally with a caption, that > is self-contained, that is typically referenced as a single unit from the main > flow of the document, and that can be moved away from the main flow of the > document without affecting the document’s meaning. is "document" correct here? or is it more like... > The figure element represents a unit of content, optionally with a caption, that > is self-contained, that is typically referenced as a single unit from the main > flow of the *sectioning element*, and that can be moved away from the main flow > of the *sectioning element* without affecting the *sectioning element*’s meaning. thank you... i hope to be helpful
yesterday i was very tired when i submitted this bug... i will try to explain myself better it is not clear (even in the newest specs) if <figure> creates an independent flow, since it is a sectioning root, relative to the whole document or relative to the closest ancestor sectioning element on whatwg.org: > 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 [...] the word "document" made me confused. because it seems that <figure> will be always related to the main document section (<body>) independently by where it is placed is a correction needed here then? is <figure> relative to the main section <body> or to the closest ancestor sectioning element? also.. > [...] be moved away from that primary content e.g. to the side of the page, > to dedicated pages, or to an appendix. ...that made me even more confused. i understood what the editor was saying here but i think it's a bad example and in my "newbie" opinion should be removed or fixed, because it is better to say instead "to the side of the page but within the section/document" "to an appendix but within the section/document" and it is better to not say at all "to dedicated pages" because it creates confusion hoping to be helpful :) (i'm sorry for my poor english)
(In reply to comment #1) > yesterday i was very tired when i submitted this bug... > i will try to explain myself better > > it is not clear (even in the newest specs) if <figure> creates an > independent flow, since it is a sectioning root, relative to the whole > document or relative to the closest ancestor sectioning element > > on whatwg.org: > > > 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 [...] > > the word "document" made me confused. because it seems that <figure> will be > always related to the main document section (<body>) independently by where > it is placed > > is a correction needed here then? is <figure> relative to the main section > <body> or to the closest ancestor sectioning element? > > also.. > > > [...] be moved away from that primary content e.g. to the side of the page, > > to dedicated pages, or to an appendix. > > ...that made me even more confused. i understood what the editor was saying > here but i think it's a bad example and in my "newbie" opinion should be > removed or fixed, > > because it is better to say instead > "to the side of the page but within the section/document" > "to an appendix but within the section/document" > and it is better to not say at all "to dedicated pages" because > it creates confusion > > hoping to be helpful :) > (i'm sorry for my poor english) Hi Georgio The HTML 5.1 Spec and the WHATWG spec differ on definition of the figure element. you can review the HTML 5.1 Spec text here: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element The HTML 5.1 spec uses the WHATWG spec as a major proposal source, as you are commenting on the whatwg spec I will leave this for the whatwg editor to answer and then we will review to decide if any proposed change from the whatwg will be accesptable for addition to HTML 5.1.
Hi Steve, the problem affects any spec, included the one you linked to me... problem is the word "document" that should be clarified ( main section body || closest ancestor section )
(In reply to comment #3) > Hi Steve, > the problem affects any spec, included the one you linked to me... > problem is the word "document" that should be clarified > ( main section body || closest ancestor section ) Hi Georgio, OK, I will leave it to Ian (WHATWG spec editor) to see if he comes up with a response in a timely manner, if not will resolve the bug myself.
moving to my queue as per steve's request Giorgio: The key part of the sentence you quote is "from the main flow". Meaning that it can be moved to the side of the page, or to an appendix, or whatnot. Can you elaborate on why it's important that it be moved to the side but in the same section? Or more specifically, what do you mean by section? Maybe a concrete example would help explain your concern.
Sorry Hixie, I totally forgot to reply this The problem is about sectioning roots in general, I think For example a <blockquote> creates a new outline as a sectioning root, but its position within the dom tree matters (at least according to how users use blockquote today) If I'm using <blockquote> as sibling of two <p>s it is probably related to the upper <article> If it's inside the site sidebar, instead, it's probably unrelated or related to <body> (ie a "famous quotes" box) That's the same for <figure>. It's about document or about the closest article? Also, their context relation it's not always a sectioning element, for example <td> is related to its <th>s, which they are not sectioning elements <fieldset> could be related to <form> <blockquote> could be related to the closest any sectioning element then body as fallback <figure> instead to the closest <article> or body as fallback am I wrong? hoping to have been clear and helpful :)
I'm not really sure what you're asking. Anything within a section is related to that section, per the outline algorithm. That's what, for examples, relates the <p> and the <h1> in the following: <h1>Bees</h1> <p>Bzz bzz!</p> ...and a section is related to its parent section, and so on. Could you give a concrete example of what is ambiguous or need changing?
so why the spec says: -- The figure element represents some flow content, optionally with a caption, that is self-contained and is typically referenced as **a single unit from the main flow of --the document--**. The element can be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings, etc. This includes, but is not restricted to, **content referred to from the main part 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. -- I think that says the opposite, isn't it? In practice: is figure related to the parent section or is it related to the document? (sorry again for the delay of the response)
The section is part of the document. If it's related to the section, it's obviously related to the document. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can definitely refer to a <figure> from anywhere in a document. For example, you could be deep in one chapter, and refer to a figure in the sidebar of an appendix. That's why the spec can't say it's only references from the current section or some such. > The element can be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code > listings, etc. This includes, but is not restricted to, **content referred > to from the main part 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. Note that this text is not in the WHATWG HTML standard. It's one of the things the W3C forked. I recommend using the WHATWG spec, as it is less likely to have errors. For the WHATWG spec's version of this section, see: http://whatwg.org/html#the-figure-element