W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:24:17 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTiltddTZRkR9qHpRpEBer7QPSDLJiSicrOSVqrJP@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tab,
>>> Another option would be to restrict figure to just images and forget
>>> it as a grouping mechanism.
>> That's unacceptable.
> Maybe. Maybe not. I'm open to ways of clearing up the confusion and
> ambiguity. That would be one way.
> Can you think of any others? I mean ways of solving the problem of
> overlapping definitions of aside and figure.

I'm somewhat confused.  What relevance does this particular issue have
to <figure>/<aside> overlap?

I must admit that I've never understood the apparent confusion between
the two.  I think the distinction is extremely clear, personally, but
perhaps my mind is wired a bit differently.

In any case, though, saying that a table can be a <figure> or not
doesn't seem to impact on the definition of <aside>, right?

Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 17:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC