[whatwg] use cases for <figure> without <figcaption>?

[Xaxio Brandish]

Steve,

One *could* use <div> elements in place of the <figure> elements; but then
again, one could use <div> elements in place of many elements in order to
remove their semantical meaning and send us back into the dark ages ;)

I believe that <figure> is possibly the best element for the job, in
agreement what Martin said regarding the spec specifying a figure being
something that is *typically* referenced in the document [1].  I also
believe that <figcaption> is necessary for exact specification (such as in
medical documents or legal documents), but may be completely unnecessary
for certain other documents (such as the font document example we are
discussing).

The reason I brought up placement and relevance of the figures in the first
place is because of this sentence in the specification:

>  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.
>
However, all of this does leave me wondering about an instance of fluff in
an HTML document and how to appropriately define it.

Consider a web page that is devoid of color or motion, and is thus less
interesting to people who *must* read it.  An example of this can be an
online driving education course.  Now imagine that the author of the page
wanted to seem less boring, and so adds a piece of barely related clip art
to the page, and said clip art is not referenced anywhere in the main
document material.  The author wants to add a humorous comment to the image
to lighten the mood of the page, and considers using <figure> and
<figcaption>.

Would it be appropriate to caption the aforementioned clip art using
<figcaption> if it is contained in an <aside> element, claiming that the
figure is self-referential yet only tangentially related to the document?
If not, is there an element better suited to this purpose, or we can we
redefine the <figcaption> element to encompass a purpose such as this?

--Xaxio

References:
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/single-page.html#the-figure-element


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Martin Janecke <whatwg.org at prlbr.com>wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> >> The fact that they are enclosed in the <figure> elements means that they
> > are referenced somewhere, I believe.
> >
> > so if not referenced somewhere, they should not be in a figure?
>
>
> Probably they should not, as figures are "typically referenced as a single
> unit from the main flow of the document"^[1]. I'd like to add that the
> reference can be implicit, though. A short car magazine article about a
> particular model might be a good example. Readers who are likely to have
> seen some cars in their lives will identify a car's front section on a
> photograph by themselves and make the connection to what the articles
> writes about it.
>
> Here is such an article:
> http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-bmw-4-series-photos-and-info-news
> Although the webpage does not actually use figure elements, it would be
> appropriate for the photographs that are embedded in the main article. The
> photographs illustrate and enhance the article's content by providing more
> design details than the text, are self-contained, not part of the main flow
> and implicitly referenced from it. (The photos should have alt-texts
> though.)
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> [1]: WHATWG HTML spec 4.5.11 The figure element
>
> Am 20.06.2013 um 23:27 schrieb Steve Faulkner:
>
> > Hi Xaxio,
> >
> > <p>Fonts come in many different varieties. The Arial font, for example,
> > does not have serifs.</p> <div>arial</div>
> > <p>However, font varieties go beyond simple serif and sans-serif
> > distinctions. The Old English font is neither of these, instead being
> > considered a "decorative" font.</p><div>Old English</div>
> >
> > The above example has meaning with or without the divs, and the placement
> > of the divs doesn't matter. They could be in a font index at the end of
> the
> > document, as long as the data consumer knows to look there if example are
> > needed.  right?
> >
> >> The fact that they are enclosed in the <figure> elements means that they
> > are referenced somewhere, I believe.
> >
> > so if not referenced somewhere, they should not be in a figure?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > SteveF
> > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >
> >
> > On 20 June 2013 20:46, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> <p>Fonts come in many different varieties. The Arial font, for example,
> >> does not have serifs.</p> <figure>arial</figure>
> >> <p>However, font varieties go beyond simple serif and sans-serif
> >> distinctions. The Old English font is neither of these, instead being
> >> considered a "decorative" font.</p><figure>Old English</figure>
> >>
> >> The above example has meaning with or without the figures, and the
> >> placement of the figures doesn't matter. They could be in a font index
> at
> >> the end of the document, as long as the data consumer knows to look
> there
> >> if example are needed.  The fact that they are enclosed in the <figure>
> >> elements means that they are referenced somewhere, I believe.
> >>
> >> When referring to multiple figures containing graphs or tables with
> really
> >> long names such as "Number of Children With Orange Dreadlocks With
> Respect
> >> to Decade" and "Periods of Time During Which Dreadlocks Are Popular,
> Where
> >> Orange Is Popular, and Where They Overlap", it's so much easier just to
> >> give them a <figcaption> and refer to "Table 1" and "Table 2" in the
> >> document.
> >>
> >> --Xaxio
> >> On Jun 20, 2013 12:20 PM, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK so how do you reference
> >>>
> >>> <figure>
> >>> arial
> >>> </figure>
> >>>
> >>> for example?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> SteveF
> >>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 20 June 2013 20:16, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The figures could be in a document talking about fonts, yet easily
> moved
> >>>> to the side of the page and still maintain relevance if referenced
> within
> >>>> the document.  I think something important about figures is placement
> >>>> irrelevance as long as they can be referenced, whereas paragraphs
> don't
> >>>> have the added semantic of "this will be referenced at some point."
> >>>>
> >>>> --Xaxio
> >>>> On Jun 20, 2013 12:10 PM, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> An illustration of a font name, in its respective font?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> why is <figure> better in this case than <p> (for example) ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SteveF
> >>>>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 20 June 2013 19:27, Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> An illustration of a font name, in its respective font?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --Xaxio
> >>>>>> On Jun 20, 2013 11:24 AM, "Steve Faulkner" <
> faulkner.steve at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What are the use cases for a <figure> without a <figcaption> ?
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> SteveF
> >>>>>>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
>
>