# Should IMG tag be placed in a P tag... in HTML5... in 2020
**URL:** \
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [June 27, 2020, 6:31pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/should-img-tag-be-placed-in-a-p-tag-in-html5-in-2020/3525 "2020-06-27T18:31:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4
**Author:**  [@chrisalley](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/chrisalley)\
**Post date:** [June 29, 2020, 12:45am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/should-img-tag-be-placed-in-a-p-tag-in-html5-in-2020/3525/4 "2020-06-29T00:45:16Z")
Because CommonMark aims to be “highly compatible” with existing implementations, I don’t think the core spec should be fundamentally changed to include figures.
However, there have been a number of discussions about different ways to implement the figure tag via extensions. My personal preference is for the community to unite around the iA Writer Content Block syntax for images in figures (and other embedded content), for which there is already a basic spec. Example:
> [@Transclusion or including sub-documents for reuse](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/transclusion-or-including-sub-documents-for-reuse/270/12):
>
> The generated HTML from /images/Structure.jpg (Data Flow) is: \ \
\Data Flow\ \ So, the figure caption doubles as the image’s alternative text, making it easier (and less repetitive) to add captioned images to a document quickly. There was also some [discussion earlier](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/why-not-allow-images-without-alt/617) about making alt text optional in some scenarios (e.g. quickly adding a set of images to a forum post), so this might be a nicer solution for…
---
_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/should-img-tag-be-placed-in-a-p-tag-in-html5-in-2020/3525)._