[uf-new] Re: figure microformat

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <F5FA4141-71BC-4716-8816-338E59A2CF68 at tobyinkster.co.uk>, 
Toby A Inkster <mail at tobyinkster.co.uk> writes

>There's two main reasons I decided against using alt as a legend in the 
>draft. Firstly, the simplest reason, this counts as invisible  data -- 
>except in Internet Explorer which displays alt attributes as  a 
>roll-over tooltip.

Considering "alt" as invisible is a very graphical-browser centric view 
of the web.

>Secondly, and more importantly, accessibility issues with the ABBR 
>pattern have shown that we shouldn't hijack accessibility-related 
>elements and attributes without a lot of thought.

No, but we shouldn't ignore them, either.

> Otherwise we may  end up with results like:
>
>       <div class="figure">
>               <img src="foo" alt="Picture of a crazy foo">
>               <span class="legend">Picture of a crazy foo</span>
>       </div>

That's bad alt text, even without the contents of the span.

>The "caption" and "legend" classes appeared to be semantically 
>identical.

"caption" appears to be what is meant here. Os is this another US vs. UK 
English issue?

>Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Turning to specifics, I think the dismissal of the "include pattern" 
>>is
>> unfortunate and needs to be reversed
>
>
>The draft has always explicitly said that the include pattern *may*  be 
>used.

But only in limited circumstances.

>It suggests that the ABBR pattern *should not* be used

You don't appear to be answering me, here...

>because  frankly I can't see any reason why it *should* be used.

...but I don't agree that that's a good premise to exclude something, 
even as a "should not".

-- 
Andy Mabbett