- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 12:40:09 -0800
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