- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:26:16 +0100
- To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:44:05 +0100, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bruce, > >>> Another question, John, do you find the definitions of aside and >>> figure too close in meaning? Should the definitions be changed? If so >>> how? The definitions of the aside and figure sound almost identical, >>> except that figure has a caption. Do you consider the overlapping >>> definitions problematic? Developers will tend to confuse the two >>> elements and use them incorrectly. >> >> They're especially similar where figure has no caption. >> >> I wrote to the WG on this in July last year >> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020710.html >> >> Main difference, in such a case, seems to me to be that aside affects >> document outline, as it's sectioning content, while figure doesn't. > > Do you think that the definition in the spec should changed to clarify > the differences better? I'm agnostic, tbh. The example I give - of a pullquote - seems to me to be neither aside (tangentially related) nor figure (illustrative related content). I'm not agitating for a <pullquote> element, simply saying that it seems to me to be an edge case for either element. (I personally think that pullquotes are presentational beasties anyway - if they divided up content, they'd be headings. They seem to me to be layout devices to break up slabs of text and I often wonder what they sound like to a screenreader user as they simply repeat content that's already in the content, but not for reasons of emphasis. (Of course, I am not a typesetter))
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 14:27:30 UTC