W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:23:54 +0200
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100607172354916109.992a7b2b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Bruce Lawson, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:23:32 +0100:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:29:07 +0100, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Another question, John, do you find the definitions of aside and
>> figure too close in meaning? Should the definitions be changed? If so
>> how? The definitions of the aside and figure sound almost identical,
>> except that figure has a caption. Do you consider the overlapping
>> definitions problematic? Developers will tend to confuse the two
>> elements and use them incorrectly.
> 
> They're especially similar where figure has no caption.
> 
> I wrote to the WG on this in July last year
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020710.html
> 
> Main difference, in such a case, seems to me to be that aside affects 
> document outline, as it's sectioning content, while figure doesn't.

Not specifically related to that message, but don't you think that one 
advantage/difference is that it would be logical to say

<figure role="img" >

whereas it would typically not be logical to say

<aside role="img">

?
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 15:25:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:09 GMT