W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2010

[whatwg] <comment> element in HTML5 Spec?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:40:09 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=GMOSnhSFXH0ZP_QeV+fZfGOe8DgjBZLWc_phY@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Ashley Sheridan
<ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 12:33 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Ashley Sheridan
> <ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Would <aside> be more contextually accurate in the case of user-generated comments? I was of the understanding that <aside> elements were content that was related to the main <article> but not necessarily part of it.
>>
>> The opposite, actually.  <aside> indicates things that are *un*related
>> to the main content, or only tangentially related.  That's why it's
>> appropriate for things like sidebars on a blog, or pull-quotes in an
>> article.
>
> Ah, my bad then, I thought it was intended as a sort of boxout thing like you might find in a magazine.

It may be.  Those sorts of things can be <figure> or <aside>.
<figure> is for things that are part of the article, but could
potentially be moved from their source location without changing the
meaning of the article or figure.

So in a magazine article, a pull-quote that just reproduces text in
the article is an <aside> (it's not actually part of the article, and
can be skipped), but a chart referenced by part of the article is a
<figure>.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 12:40:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:29 UTC