- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:09:39 -0300
- 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