Re: <FIG> implies <P>?
Rodney Barnett (RBarnett@us.teltech.com)
Fri, 14 Jul 95 07:29:01 cst
In message <199507131625.MAA07293@beach.w3.org>, Daniel W. Connolly writes:
>During the white-board discussion that Dave and I had, we discussed
>this sort of thing, including the way FrameMaker allows you to
>align figures all sorts of fancy ways with respect to the paragraph
>in which they're anchored.
>We considered the possibility of expressing the above situation as:
> <p>The bond angle between the two oxygen-hydrogen
> bonds in water is slightly larger than that
> between two carbon-hydrogen bonds in methane
> (see <a href="fig1">figure 1</a>)<spot id=fig1anchor>. This
> is due to the two extra pairs of free electrons around the
> oxygen atom, which take up more space than the bound
> <fig src="molecules.jpg" id="fig1" align="right" at="fig1anchor">
> figure 1 shows models of CO2 and H2O molecules
>This way, the content models aren't changed: <FIG> is still a
>peer of <P>. But the <spot> element allows the author to suggest
>where the figure should be anchored in the paragraph.
>Do you think that would work?
Why restrict this discussion to figures if <FIG> and <P> are peers?
Couldn't the mechanism above be generalized a little to allow textual
sidebars or embedded lists? In other words, isn't this discussion really
about taking two separate elements and expressing a containment
relationship between them?