W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: The History of <aside> for sidebars

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:24:46 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909041324k6995906m221cf74d39d22115@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Foliot<jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Meanwhile, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Blogrolls and archive links are often on the sidebar, true, but I
>> think that's mostly a pure style issue - they are usually tall and
>> display well with a constrained width, which makes them fit much
>> better in a sidebar than a header.
>
> (JF wonders how "tall" and "constrained width" affects the non-sighted
> user... )
>
> Not that the point is not taken, but structure is more than just display.

Certainly!  That was my argument, in fact - that the differences
between <header>/<footer>/<aside> are purely visual when used as page
structure.  They share virtually identical "content models" (taking a
colloquial definition of such, rather than the spec definition), with
the only differences being based on visual styling (like blogrolls
visually displaying best in a sidebar).

Structure-wise, they're all just <ui>.  The only reason they have
different names is because those are the classes we give <div>s
filling those roles to define their visual display, and classnames
were the big determiner of what new elements to add in this realm.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 20:25:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:07 UTC