[Bug 8447] Tighter definition on the aside element

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8447





--- Comment #4 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2009-12-07 14:16:24 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Currently, the following line is given with the aside element:
> > 
> > "The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or
> > sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other content
> > that is considered separate from the main content of the page."
> > 
> > If the aside is equivalent to a printed sidebar, there should be no nav
> > elements, and shouldn't be referenced as a web page sidebar. This confuses the
> > semantics of the element, which decreases its value.
> 
> <nav> elements have a more specific semantic than <aside>. This argument is
> like saying that because <div> exists, there should be no <p> element.
> 
> > Another section element should be used for a web page sidebar, the same as a
> > section should be used for the main content (or a second sidebar, etc). 
> > 
> > In addition, no navigation should be embedded in an aside element--not if it is
> > to be used for pull quotes or typographical sidebars. Placing navigation in the
> > aside could lead to it being skipped by some user agents, who treat the
> > element's semantics seriously.
> 
> Indeed, it would generally be better to use <nav> in the specific case of a
> navigation sidebar (as opposed to a general sidebar for other purposes).
> 
> > If there is an HTML5 primer, we would want to clarify that the aside element is
> > not used for web page sidebars.
> 
> That would only be the case for navigation sidebars. However, the following
> kinds of sidebars would be fine to put in an <aside> element:
> 
> - a sidebar containing ads
> - a sidebar containing a separate related article (i.e. the exact case of a
> print sidebar)
> - a blogroll sidebar (this would not match the semantics of <nav> which state
> "Not all groups of links on a page need to be in a nav element — only sections
> that consist of major navigation blocks are appropriate for the nav element."
> -- links to other blogs would not generally be considered major navigation
> blocks)
> - a sidebar listing recent posts (this would also not be a "major navigation
> block")
> - sidebars containing a list of contacts, as in some mail apps
> - sidebars containing widgets/gadgets which are ancillary to the main page
> - a sidebar providing contact information for the author or authors of the site
> - a sidebar on an online store page listing most popular items or top sellers
> (this would not be a major navigation block)- sidebars containing one or more
> of the foregoing, as well as a navigation section (which would then be in a
> <nav> tested in the <aside>)
> 
> Note: the above are all examples from real sites.
> 


Yes, i have seen sidebars in web pages. 

However, these are not examples of typographical sidebars. Nor are they
equivalent to what is known as a "pull quote". 

Confused semantics will lead to misunderstandings and misuse of the new HTML5
elements. 


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 14:16:28 UTC