- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:03:38 +0100
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "James Graham" <jgraham@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:51:25 +0100, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: I think it > might be worth reintroducing the <sidebar> element as a distinct > sectioning element, and limiting the uses of <aside> to things like > pullouts, footnotes and other non-sidebar uses. > ... > > Look at most blogs and you'll see better examples of sidebars. They > often contain things like blogrolls and archive links, search forms, > latest twitter status, etc. which would be inappropriate for a header. > I found this a problem when retrofitting my blog to use HTML5. The definition of aside certainly didn't encompass my sidebar, which is currently marked up as nav, which does largely contain navigatiohn but also encompasses a search bar, latest tweet, random pic of myself and a colophon, none of which are actually "nav". (I felt uncomfortable about stretching the definition of nav at the time). Perhaps aside *should* be (re-)widened to allow me to mark up a sidebar, which contains a <nav> plus the other stuff, and the current meaning of aside (tangental info) could be folded into <figure>? Hixie and I have already discussed the fact that aside and figure are very similar http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019679.html, and Hixie said that the use of one or the other for pullquotes in the spec is arbitrary http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020710.html. -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal)
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 13:05:20 UTC