- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:23:54 +0200
- To: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Bruce Lawson, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:23:32 +0100: > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:29:07 +0100, Laura Carlson > <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> 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. Not specifically related to that message, but don't you think that one advantage/difference is that it would be logical to say <figure role="img" > whereas it would typically not be logical to say <aside role="img"> ? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 15:25:03 UTC