- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:45:47 +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 06:21:32 -0500: > Hi Leif, > >> 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. > > How is that different from aside? > > Thanks. Things that are legitimately seen as different things, may still be deeply connected. But I agree that it is worth asking whether the difference is perceived or "real". On the Web, there often isn't any real difference between having something on the same page or on another page. Even an <aside> could probably be placed on another page: <a href="link">An aside</a>. Attempt on defining the difference: <aside> cannot be moved to another context without loosing a lot of its original meaning. If you loose the link to the context - in any meaning of "link" - the <aside> stops functioning as an aside. Being "tangentially related" it *is* related and dependent on to the context. <figure>, while it can also "take up" meaning from the context in which it is located, it may also be moved to another location and still be meaningful in itself and on its own. Thus a <figure> can be dropped into many different contexts and still be meaningful. To better discern <figure> from <aside>, how about *requiring* <figure> to have a summary/caption? Because, the way I see it, unless a <figure> has a caption, it is difficult to perceive it as an independent entity suitable for more than one context. Your turn ... -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 12:46:23 UTC