*haha* I've removed w3.org from the recipients list... so onwards to the
content below...
Jochem Maas wrote:
Op 2/10/10 9:08 PM, Robert Cummings schreef:
From the editor's draft:
"
The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of
content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside
element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such
sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography.
The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or
sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other
content that is considered separate from the main content of the page.
"
Dear God, please don't suggest it be used for noise like sidebars,
advertising, or non related groups of nav elements. Asides are NOT often
represented AS sidebars in printed typography, they are often
represented IN sidebars of printed typography. This distinction is
fundamentally different.
I've never read a serious article where suddenly an aside is made where
it says:
BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY OUR JUNK TODAY!!
An aside is tangential to the content (as in the working draft of the
spec), this means it is related in some way, usually enriching the
information/experience rather than watering it down with nonsense.
I beg you to reconsider your wording for this element's description.
as an aside, I think I'll wait until there is some general consensus on the
actual constructive usage of this sort of tag until I use it - personally I
really think this is too vague.
the concepts of what is structural, what is semantic and what is style are too
mixed up and vague for me to worry, just yet, about the details of these new-fangled
HTML5 tags (not mention browser support).
@Rob - your browswer compability 'hack' example in another recent thread is a
perfect example or the problems we face with trying to delineate between styling and
semantics and as such I think I lot of what HTML5 adds is arbitrary and rather
vague (the CANVAS and video stuff not withstanding)
personally I don't give a hoot - browsers (and more importantly the users, and the
various versions they run - and will be running for quite some time) mean that,
as fas as I'm concerned, HTML5 and everything it may entail is still a pipe dream.
As long as people run IE6 or IE7 (actually any POS browser that doesn't properly
attempt to implement current standards) such things as semantically marked up ASIDES
(as vague as the concept might) are rather irrelevant to the day to day business of
building web sites/applications that accessible/relevant/usable/etc to the general
public.
I can only somewhat agree with your assessment above. It is true that
while many people still use broken browsers like IE6 and IE7; however,
this should not completely dissuade us from improving the experience for
those users that *do* choose standards compliant browsers. If we ignore
those users because we don't see the point in wasting time on the IE*
crowd, then we essentially weaken the argument in favour of embracing
standards. While IE* Joe, doesn't give a damn about whether his browser
supports <aside> or not, studious Jane really enjoys the enriched
experience her browser provides because not only does it understand
asides, but it provides a convenient extra facility that extracts them
into a browsable list with excerpts taken from the surrounding text for
context (inverting the relationship :). Then there's Jenny who's blind,
she's listening to the content on the page and hears a little ding go
off that indicates there's further information available that she can
review-- she can choose to pull it up and listen to it, after which the
reader returns to where she left off the original content. Alternatively
she may choose not to interrupt the main flow of information, but again,
similar to Jane's experience she can listen to each one afterwards in a
summarized fashion.
This is how serious organizations, and almost certainly Government, will
markup their information. Regardless of whether everyone has a browser
that supports the information. If the semantic markup improves usability
and enriches the information, then it will be used to meet that purpose.
PS. from a semantics POV, Robert Cummings is, IMHO, spot on in his assessment - I do enjoy
his posts, he's a sharp cookie with plenty to offer and I always enjoy reading his
argumentation and opinion!
Thanks... You've got me blushing :D
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
