- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:13:00 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Laura Carlson, Tue, 8 Jun 2010 03:39:49 -0500: > Hi Bruce, > >> My gut feeling is that the difference is >> >> 1) illustrative and 2) "typically referred to in the main article/ >> section". >> Aside is tangential, >> figure is integral. > > The spec currently says that figure, > > "could, without affecting the flow of the document, be moved away from > that primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated > pages, or to an appendix." > > If figure can be moved away from primary content, it sure doesn’t seem > to be integral/essential. I interpret that sentence to express that the <figure> has a certain autonomy and/or internal unity. Kind of like when things are moved out of HTML5 proper and into a separate spec ... ;-) It can still be linked to from the HTML5 proper spec. And, to some, it continues to be integral/essential ... > Is that bit of text really needed? Perhaps > it should be removed or adjusted? Maybe emphasize that figure is > integral and is meant to strengthen meaning? No, this doesn't sound like a good idea. It is not, for instance, forbidden to create a page which merely contains a collection of more or less unrelated <figure> elements. However, I agree that it is probably possible to use other words. The point that should be emphasized is that a <figure>, regardless of its close or distant relationship to the rest of the page, is an entity of its own. > Talking about "the side > of the page" in the figure element definition confuses it with the > aside element. May be. > The spec currently says that the aside element, > > "represents a section of a page that consists of content that is > tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and > which could be considered separate from that content." > > Thoughts? Having a page filled with <aside> elements only, does not generally seem very meaningful - may be unless the page is a collection of aphorisms. In contrast, a page filled with <figure> elements only seems meaningful. It is also possible to do <aside> <figure> <summary>…</summary> Another point. </figure> </aside> But this does not seem so meaningful: <figure> <summary>…</summary> <aside> Another point. </aside> </figure> (Even if authors could end up doing this, if they need the <aside> to have a caption... ) -- leif halvard
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 09:14:07 UTC