- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:22:49 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-html@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. 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. Hmm, possibly I'm weird because there is no way that I get from the term "aside" to "sidebar". I would really be interested to know how you make that connection because (apart from the obvious fact that "side" is a substring of both words) I honestly don't see it. Indeed I assumed for a long time that <aisde> mean "pullout" rather than "sidebar" even though I must have been involved with discussions where it was mentioned that it could be used for a sidebar. I am still unconvinced the semantic or UA-behaviour overlap between the two cases (sidebar vs pullout) is great enough that a single element for both makes sense.
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 07:23:10 UTC