> But <IMG> can't have captions. Shouldn't <IMG> be phased out in favour
> of the more general <FIG>? I think letting <IMG> have functionality
> <FIG> lacks is a "design bug".
IMG occurs within paragraphs, while FIG is a peer of paragraphs.
This choice should be a matter for debate though. Regardless of the
outcome, I believe that IMG still has a useful role for small graphics
that blend into the enclosing textline.
> Note: the browser should feel free to relocate the <FIG> to the end or
> beginning of the (enclosing) paragraph if flowing the text around it
> is not feasible/appropriate, much the same way figures in books float
> around. For <FIG>'s less than half the screen width, _I_ would prefer
> it if the browser put it in the middle of the stream of text.
Paragraphs can't currently enclose a FIG element, but even if they could
I still feel that breaking text lines across an image is bad practice.
The current specification seems a reasonable compromise between flexibility
for authors and the degree of complexity for browser developers.
-- Dave Raggett <email@example.com> url = http://www.hpl.hp.co.uk/people/dsr
Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Road, | tel: +44 117 922 8046
Bristol BS12 6QZ, United Kingdom | fax: +44 117 922 8924