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

Re: HTML5 feedback from prominent designers

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:09:39 -0300
Message-ID: <63df84f0909021609m160c7180w3bad38881e73f9d0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Smylers<Smylers@stripey.com> wrote:
>> James Graham writes:
>>> It seems clear that people (myself included) don't make the "a sidebar
>>> is to <body> as a pullout is to <article>" logical leap that forms the
>>> premise of using a single element for both functions.
>> I was more thinking of it as: <aside> is for content that's out of the
>> main flow -- standalone content which can be read before or after the
>> main (or <main>?) content (and which isn't a <header> or <footer>).
> After having it explained by Hixie, this is roughly what I generalized
> on as well.  Pullquotes and digressions are "out of the main flow" of
> the article; they accompany it without being read as part of the
> content.  Sidebar panels are "out of the main flow" of the page
> itself, for the same reason.
> So, I'm now fine with <aside> being used in that way.  However, the
> current spec text is entirely inadequate, as it requires one to make
> that generalization step, which is often a *bad* move (it's precisely
> the sort of thing you'll do when you start, and get trained out of
> when you learn a bit more).  I propose adding a third example
> explicitly illustrating that this is okay, like the following:

Unfortunately very few people read the spec. So if something is hard
to understand adding text to the spec is unlikely to help.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 23:10:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:56 UTC