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 20:49:40 -0300
Message-ID: <63df84f0909021649u5112e06fr363320de28d9b7b1@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC