- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 19:57:16 -0500
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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? Indeed, when talking about overall page structure. I don't know if it's safe to assume that we authors think it's *only* good for sidebars. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 00:58:12 UTC