Hi,
>> I'm not sure. Doesn't look like it to me -- I would instead have put:
>>
>> - (format "\n<p>%s</p>" contents)
>> + (format "\n%s" contents)
>>
>> Because we never want the <p> tag inside the figure. Isn't that right?
>
> I don't think so. When `org-html-html5-fancy' is non-nil, "ox-html.el"
> uses <p> tags to separate image and caption.
I agree that the <p> could be retained in the non-HTML5 case. That
corresponds to the W3 example below. Note, strictly speaking I guess the
non-HTML5 org html output is not necessarily "HTML4", so the example may
not apply.
https://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/figures.en.html#Illustrati
> Moreover, there is no <figure> in that case, but a <div
> class=\"figure\">. Can't this contain a <p> block element?
Yes. HTML5 "figure" can hold "p" as well, but it's not necessary, and it
seems to be uncommon.
Rasmus
--
Human: An animal that complicates things more than strictly necessary
