On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:57:15 +0100, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote:
I don't think the spec is clear enough defining these two elements from
an author's perspective.
..
What is the difference between a <figure> that has no caption and an
<aside>? Both seem to be connected in some way with the main content
around it, but can be considered separate/ may be moved.
..
So If I have a magazine-style pullquote, is that a figure or an aside
(or neither)?
I have attempted to address this, but actually it turns out HTML5 already
has examples of how to do pull quotes in the <aside> section.
I didn't express myself clearly enough. This isn't a problem per se - it's
the symptom of a problem. I note that there is an example of how to do
pullquotes, but I can't deduce the logic that makes it obvious why one
should use an <aside> rather than <figure>; the definition of each seems
to allow either to be used thus.
For example, in the middle of a fictional interview about markup, I
might want to pull out a quote and citation: Do I write
<aside>
<blockquote>After a sip of sweet sherry, I turn into Mr Last
Week</blockquote>
<cite>Ian Hickson</cite>
</aside>
Or
<figure>
<blockquote>After a sip of sweet sherry, I turn into Mr Last
Week</blockquote>
<legend>Ian Hickson</legend>
</figure>
The former shows correct usage of <aside> vs <figure>, though the <cite>
element usage is incorrect; the name should not be marked up.
Again, I see no spec-derived reason why it should be <aside> rather than
<figure>, other than it happens to be given an example of one rather than
the other. I have no preference, just seek to eliminate ambiguity.
(Given that marking up a name as a citation is common practice, and
validator cannot distinguish between a name and a title of a work, should
we widen the definition of <cite> to match the "English language"
defintion "1. to quote or refer to (a passage, book, or author)" ? A
different discussion, apologies)
