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

Re: The History of <aside> for sidebars

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:12:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA190E1.8000008@lachy.id.au>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I'm agreeing with you again!  Yes,<header>/<footer>/<aside>  all
> indicate that the contained content is not the main content.  In the
> context of an article they carry additional specific meaning, but in
> the context of a webpage  they convey only a visual distinction.

No, they don't.  While they have a partial overlap in the kinds of 
content that could be included within each, the issue is more about 
their contextual and structural significance than about what they contain.

Your argument about sharing common content types could, for example, be 
applied to <ol> and <ul>.  Both just contain a list of list items, and 
by that logic alone it doesn't make sense to distinguish them.  But it's 
clear there's more to it than just their content models.  The 
significance that the ol element places upon the order of the list items 
is sufficient to justify a separate element.  Similarly, a headers, 
footers and sidebars provide context for their contents.

For instance, a top level heading in a header element represents the 
heading for the following content in the remainder of the section, 
whereas a heading within a footer or sidebar only represents a heading 
for the subsequent content within the footer.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 22:13:28 UTC

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