Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:03:45 -0500:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 06:45 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> 
>>> Neither of the decisions addresses the other HTML audiences, such as web
>>> developers, designers, tech writers, tool builders, and so on.
>> 
>> I personally spent considerable time scanning the web to see if I 
>> could substantiate the claims that these elements were too complex 
>> for these audiences.  What I found instead was plenty of instances 
>> where people were welcoming these changes, often eagerly.

> The real point is: who asked for these elements either in the WhatWG 
> group, or in the W3C? 

A figure like solution has been discussed long and hard: XHTML2 
suggested a <caption> to the <object> element. HTML-before-4 had a 
<fig> element. And the very issue of offering captions to elements has 
been discussed many times in tutorials etc. So this issue seems worth 
solving in HTML5.

Btw: I can say that when I first started to look at HTML5, then 
<figure> was one of the elements that I first caught my interest. I 
immediately linked it to <object> -and interpreted it as variant of 
<object>, so to speak. Though, I am not sure that this is how those 
that placed it into HTML5 thought of it.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 00:54:16 UTC