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

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:44:14 +0100
To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vdx6j0p3h8on37@bruce-pc>
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:35:56 +0100, Laura Carlson  
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:


>> I think the example of one figure, multiple images in
>> http://html5doctor.com/the-figure-figcaption-elements/ is legitimate
>
> Sweet. It would be great to be able to do it that way but allowing any
> flow content really adds to the complexity.
>
> Guess we keep thinking about it. Maybe the definition should stress
> more that figure is used for illustrative purposes...somehow try to
> distinguish it from the aside element.

I'm in favour of a definition that distinguishes it, but artificially  
restricting authors just to make it more definable seems the wrong way.

My gut feeling is that the difference is 1) illustrative and 2) "typically  
referred to in the main article/ section". Aside is tangential, figure is  
integral.

I'd have no objection to using <summary> for details and figure (and while  
we're at it, why wouldn't we use type="captions" on <track> rather than  
"kind" ?)

b
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 20:45:11 GMT

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