- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:14:05 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Leif >> How is that different from aside? > 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. Requiring a caption is a good idea, Leif. It is the one thing that distinguishes figure from aside. The differences document [1] defines <figure>: "figure can be used to associate a caption together with some embedded content, such as a graphic or video". This is very generic. In light of this and Jame's bug " Clarify that a figure can be any content with a caption" [1], how about renaming <figure> something like <content> or <embeddedcontent>. It would match the definition better. It would also disambiguate and avoid the conception from the print world (held many) that figure should be restricted to image of some sort. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/Overview.html#new-elements [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9876 Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 16:14:36 UTC