- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:13:53 -0500
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. In this case we're okay, since it's only by reading the spec that I came to the wrong conclusion. ^_^ I, and many other people, immediately assume that <aside> *is* appropriate for sidebars when we see its name. I just want to make sure that reading the spec doesn't disabuse anyone of that correct notion, like it obviously has. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 23:22:27 UTC