Change Details

### Motivation The #parsing-team is working towards [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsing/Parser_Unification | unifying ]] the current MediaWiki core wikitext parser (#mediawiki-parser) with #parsoid with the aim of getting Wikimedia wikis use Parsoid for all wikitext use cases sometime late next (calendar) year. Getting their media output to match is one important step along that road. T118517 is an approved RFC to emit the more semantic HTML5 `<figure>` tags around media, as described in [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/MediaWiki_DOM_spec#Images | Parsoid's spec ]]. However, `<figure>` elements are not phrasing content and therefore do not capture the proper semantics in all contexts in which media are used. This RFC is about emitting `<figure-inline>` tags for media in contexts where phrasing content should be found. The "-inline" suffix comes from the HTML4 block vs inline distinction, where "inline" [[ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Block-level_elements#Block-level_vs._inline | roughly corresponds ]] with HTML5 phrasing content. Currently, Parsoid implements its spec and the custom `<figure-inline>` tag seems to be working well in practice. However, while custom elements are permitted by the standard, there is a concern that we're picking an overly broad name that may eventually lead to conflict. Some alternative options to consider: - Revert to using a non-semantic `<span>` tag for phrasing content - Use a vendor prefixed name instead for phrasing content, like `<mw-figure-inline>` - Use a vendor prefixed name in all contexts, instead of the standard `<figure>`, for all around consistency and to avoid breaking paragraphs - Push to get `<figure-inline>` standardized, but there might be more goodwill if go that route before shipping it

T118517 is an approved RFC to emit the more semantic HTML5 `<figure>` tags around media, as described in [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/MediaWiki_DOM_spec#Images | Parsoid's spec ]]. However, `<figure>` elements are not phrasing content and therefore do not capture the proper semantics in all contexts in which media are used. This RFC is about emitting `<figure-inline>` tags for media in contexts where phrasing content should be found. The "-inline" suffix comes from the HTML4 block vs inline distinction, where "inline" [[ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Block-level_elements#Block-level_vs._inline | roughly corresponds ]] with HTML5 phrasing content. Currently, Parsoid implements its spec and the custom `<figure-inline>` tag seems to be working well in practice. However, while custom elements are permitted by the standard, there is a concern that we're picking an overly broad name that may eventually lead to conflict. Some options to consider, - Revert to using a non-semantic `<span>` tag for phrasing content - Use a vendor prefixed name instead for phrasing content, like `<mw-figure-inline>` - Use a vendor prefixed name in all contexts, instead of the standard `<figure>`, for all around consistency and to avoid breaking paragraphs - Push to get `<figure-inline>` standardized, but there might be more goodwill if go that route before shipping it The #parsing-team has a longer-term goal of [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsing/Parser_Unification | unifying ]] the legacy wikitext parser (#mediawiki-parser) with #parsoid. Getting their media output to match is one step along that road.

### Motivation The #parsing-team is working towards [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsing/Parser_Unification | unifying ]] the current MediaWiki core wikitext parser (#mediawiki-parser) with #parsoid with the aim of getting Wikimedia wikis use Parsoid for all wikitext use cases sometime late next (calendar) year. Getting their media output to match is one important step along that road. T118517 is an approved RFC to emit the more semantic HTML5 `<figure>` tags around media, as described in [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid/MediaWiki_DOM_spec#Images | Parsoid's spec ]]. However, `<figure>` elements are not phrasing content and therefore do not capture the proper semantics in all contexts in which media are used. This RFC is about emitting `<figure-inline>` tags for media in contexts where phrasing content should be found. The "-inline" suffix comes from the HTML4 block vs inline distinction, where "inline" [[ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Block-level_elements#Block-level_vs._inline | roughly corresponds ]] with HTML5 phrasing content. Currently, Parsoid implements its spec and the custom `<figure-inline>` tag seems to be working well in practice. However, while custom elements are permitted by the standard, there is a concern that we're picking an overly broad name that may eventually lead to conflict. Some alternativSome options to consider:, - Revert to using a non-semantic `<span>` tag for phrasing content - Use a vendor prefixed name instead for phrasing content, like `<mw-figure-inline>` - Use a vendor prefixed name in all contexts, instead of the standard `<figure>`, for all around consistency and to avoid breaking paragraphs - Push to get `<figure-inline>` standardized, but there might be more goodwill if go that route before shipping it The #parsing-team has a longer-term goal of [[ https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsing/Parser_Unification | unifying ]] the legacy wikitext parser (#mediawiki-parser) with #parsoid. Getting their media output to match is one step along that road.