- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:24:17 -0700
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tab, > >>> Another option would be to restrict figure to just images and forget >>> it as a grouping mechanism. >> >> That's unacceptable. > > Maybe. Maybe not. I'm open to ways of clearing up the confusion and > ambiguity. That would be one way. > > Can you think of any others? I mean ways of solving the problem of > overlapping definitions of aside and figure. I'm somewhat confused. What relevance does this particular issue have to <figure>/<aside> overlap? I must admit that I've never understood the apparent confusion between the two. I think the distinction is extremely clear, personally, but perhaps my mind is wired a bit differently. In any case, though, saying that a table can be a <figure> or not doesn't seem to impact on the definition of <aside>, right? ~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 17:32:06 UTC