- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:33:21 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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. > > Do we have any evidence that people are missing this fact, though? Didn't several people (you included) say that the reaction many people had to the <aside> element was that it was for the page sidebar, like <header> was for the page header and <footer> the page footer? / Jonas
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 00:34:24 UTC