You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@forrest.apache.org by Silvia Haramburu <sh...@datatransfer.com.ar> on 2004/08/03 15:38:43 UTC
(img | figure | icon) ?
Hi!
What is the real difference between IMG, FIGURE & ICON?
I mean, in which case should I use each one?
Can someone tell me?
Thanks!
Silvia.
Re: (img | figure | icon) ?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Johannes Schaefer wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Silvia Haramburu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>> What is the real difference between IMG, FIGURE & ICON?
>>> I mean, in which case should I use each one?
>>> Can someone tell me?
>>
>> Short answer: use <img> :-)
>>
>> Long answer: honestly I don't think we know, as it was part of the
>> original Document DTD that we have inherited. We will move to XTML2 in
>> the next releases, so sticking to <img> will be a pretty safe bet.
>>
> There is a difference (at least in sDocBook there is):
> <figure> needs a title that will be rendered as caption;
> <img> (<mediaobject><imageobject>...) doesn't.
>
> Right now sDocBook-figures get rendered in Forrest-Document-XML
> as tables with two rows: one for the <figure> (or <img>?), one
> for the caption. This looses some information that might be used
> for rendering in PDF, e.g. that caption and image always should
> stick together on the same page ...
Ok.
> Then, I don't know about XTML2, so ...
> (Extensible Telephony ML?? http://xml.coverpages.org/xtml.html)
Oops, I meant XHTML 2.0
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: (img | figure | icon) ?
Posted by Johannes Schaefer <jo...@uidesign.de>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Silvia Haramburu wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>> What is the real difference between IMG, FIGURE & ICON?
>> I mean, in which case should I use each one?
>> Can someone tell me?
>
>
> Short answer: use <img> :-)
>
> Long answer: honestly I don't think we know, as it was part of the
> original Document DTD that we have inherited. We will move to XTML2 in
> the next releases, so sticking to <img> will be a pretty safe bet.
>
>
There is a difference (at least in sDocBook there is):
<figure> needs a title that will be rendered as caption;
<img> (<mediaobject><imageobject>...) doesn't.
Right now sDocBook-figures get rendered in Forrest-Document-XML
as tables with two rows: one for the <figure> (or <img>?), one
for the caption. This looses some information that might be used
for rendering in PDF, e.g. that caption and image always should
stick together on the same page ...
Then, I don't know about XTML2, so ...
(Extensible Telephony ML?? http://xml.coverpages.org/xtml.html)
Johannes
--
User Interface Design GmbH * Teinacher Str. 38 * D-71634 Ludwigsburg
Fon +49 (0)7141 377 000 * Fax +49 (0)7141 377 00-99
Geschäftsstelle: User Interface Design GmbH * Lehrer-Götz-Weg 11 *
D-81825 München
www.uidesign.de
Re: (img | figure | icon) ?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Silvia Haramburu wrote:
> Hi!
> What is the real difference between IMG, FIGURE & ICON?
> I mean, in which case should I use each one?
> Can someone tell me?
Short answer: use <img> :-)
Long answer: honestly I don't think we know, as it was part of the
original Document DTD that we have inherited. We will move to XTML2 in
the next releases, so sticking to <img> will be a pretty safe bet.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------