- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 20:49:40 -0300
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. But that still means that people miss the fact that you can use <aside> to mark up footnotes and other types of in-flow asides. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 23:50:48 UTC