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

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 03:39:49 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgVY4YkgkqyJW93bGwnMg-jdMRPKIfLlsqQNzn@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Bruce,

> 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.

The spec currently says that figure,

"could, without affecting the flow of the document, be moved away from
that primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated
pages, or to an appendix."

If figure can be moved away from primary content, it sure doesn’t seem
to be integral/essential. Is that bit of text really needed? Perhaps
it should be removed or adjusted? Maybe emphasize that figure is
integral and is meant to strengthen meaning? Talking about "the side
of the page" in the figure element definition confuses it with the
aside element.

The spec currently says that the aside  element,

"represents a section of a page that consists of content that is
tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and
which could be considered separate from that content."

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura

--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 08:40:23 GMT

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