<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An aside really isn’t a sidebar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://leonpaternoster.com/2010/03/an-aside-really-isnt-a-sidebar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://leonpaternoster.com/2010/03/an-aside-really-isnt-a-sidebar/</link>
	<description>A blog about editing, managing and building web stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 04:36:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: HTML 5 &#8211; gut gemeint ist selten gut. (Teil 1) &#124; Alexander Walther</title>
		<link>http://leonpaternoster.com/2010/03/an-aside-really-isnt-a-sidebar/#comment-77230</link>
		<dc:creator>HTML 5 &#8211; gut gemeint ist selten gut. (Teil 1) &#124; Alexander Walther</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leonpaternoster.com/?p=1057#comment-77230</guid>
		<description>[...] An Aside isn’t really a side­bar auf eleonpaternoster.com [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] An Aside isn’t really a side­bar auf eleonpaternoster.com [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leon</title>
		<link>http://leonpaternoster.com/2010/03/an-aside-really-isnt-a-sidebar/#comment-33275</link>
		<dc:creator>Leon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 15:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leonpaternoster.com/?p=1057#comment-33275</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comment, Ricardo.

Yes, the return of &lt;code&gt;sidebar&lt;/code&gt; would be good. I use &lt;code&gt;aside&lt;/code&gt; for the sidebar on this site as that&#039;s what the spec says I should do, and we have to follow the spec whether we agree with it or not.

The more you use HTML5 the more it makes sense. Using &lt;code&gt;div&lt;/code&gt; for articles, headers, sections and sidebars now seems plain odd. The thing to remember, I think, is that every element can have its own internal structure (so articles can have headers and footers, for example, but not bodies &#8212; but that&#039;s a different matter), and that each new element starts a new heading hierarchy. Which means lots of &lt;code&gt;h1&lt;/code&gt;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment, Ricardo.</p>
<p>Yes, the return of <code>sidebar</code> would be good. I use <code>aside</code> for the sidebar on this site as that&#8217;s what the spec says I should do, and we have to follow the spec whether we agree with it or not.</p>
<p>The more you use HTML5 the more it makes sense. Using <code>div</code> for articles, headers, sections and sidebars now seems plain odd. The thing to remember, I think, is that every element can have its own internal structure (so articles can have headers and footers, for example, but not bodies &mdash; but that&#8217;s a different matter), and that each new element starts a new heading hierarchy. Which means lots of <code>h1</code>s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ricardo Verhaeg</title>
		<link>http://leonpaternoster.com/2010/03/an-aside-really-isnt-a-sidebar/#comment-33274</link>
		<dc:creator>Ricardo Verhaeg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 14:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leonpaternoster.com/?p=1057#comment-33274</guid>
		<description>Agreed, hopefully a better tag (maybe even the back of &#039;sidebar&#039;) will come with better semantics. Or yet we are the ones confusing and using an aside as sidebar.
Your example show the diference between aside and sidebar, and if W3C sees this, maybe we could see a change sooner then expected.

I just think that HTML5 lacks a little on Context. Many tags have their semantics, in a global way all makes senses. But somecodes become odd because they lack context between the tag and its parents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed, hopefully a better tag (maybe even the back of &#8216;sidebar&#8217;) will come with better semantics. Or yet we are the ones confusing and using an aside as sidebar.<br />
Your example show the diference between aside and sidebar, and if W3C sees this, maybe we could see a change sooner then expected.</p>
<p>I just think that HTML5 lacks a little on Context. Many tags have their semantics, in a global way all makes senses. But somecodes become odd because they lack context between the tag and its parents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leon</title>
		<link>http://leonpaternoster.com/2010/03/an-aside-really-isnt-a-sidebar/#comment-32272</link>
		<dc:creator>Leon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 07:45:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leonpaternoster.com/?p=1057#comment-32272</guid>
		<description>Yes, I&#039;m liking it too (this site is HTML5). The flexibility and simplicity &#8212; starting from the &lt;code&gt;doctype&lt;/code&gt; &#8212; is really refreshing.

I also like the open development, even if it can make things seem chaotic; there&#039;s a spec, of course, and there&#039;s a lot of discussion around the spec (&lt;a href=&quot;http://html5doctor.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;HTML5 Doctor&lt;/a&gt;, for example). It&#039;s obviously still being developed, so there are bound to be changes (there actually was a &lt;code&gt;sidebar&lt;/code&gt; tag a while back, and &lt;code&gt;aside&lt;/code&gt;&#039;s purpose has been extended). I guess the more examples of how we map common HTML4 pages to HTML5 (or XHTML to HTML5) we see, the more we&#039;ll agree on actual usage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I&#8217;m liking it too (this site is HTML5). The flexibility and simplicity &mdash; starting from the <code>doctype</code> &mdash; is really refreshing.</p>
<p>I also like the open development, even if it can make things seem chaotic; there&#8217;s a spec, of course, and there&#8217;s a lot of discussion around the spec (<a href="http://html5doctor.com" rel="nofollow">HTML5 Doctor</a>, for example). It&#8217;s obviously still being developed, so there are bound to be changes (there actually was a <code>sidebar</code> tag a while back, and <code>aside</code>&#8216;s purpose has been extended). I guess the more examples of how we map common HTML4 pages to HTML5 (or XHTML to HTML5) we see, the more we&#8217;ll agree on actual usage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Oliver</title>
		<link>http://leonpaternoster.com/2010/03/an-aside-really-isnt-a-sidebar/#comment-32271</link>
		<dc:creator>David Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leonpaternoster.com/?p=1057#comment-32271</guid>
		<description>Yes, &quot;aside&quot; isn&#039;t really the best name for the tag. As HTML5 is a language which is supposed to be about adding semantic value you would have thought they&#039;d have ensured their tag names don&#039;t conflict with the current English dictionary.

My favourite thing about HTML5 is that you can write XHTML style (self-closing tags) markup, making switching between HTML5 and XHTML5 very easy. I&#039;m currently building my first HTML5 site, and have spent a few days reading up on the spec and its changes. Overall I think it&#039;s nice and an improvement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, &#8220;aside&#8221; isn&#8217;t really the best name for the tag. As HTML5 is a language which is supposed to be about adding semantic value you would have thought they&#8217;d have ensured their tag names don&#8217;t conflict with the current English dictionary.</p>
<p>My favourite thing about HTML5 is that you can write XHTML style (self-closing tags) markup, making switching between HTML5 and XHTML5 very easy. I&#8217;m currently building my first HTML5 site, and have spent a few days reading up on the spec and its changes. Overall I think it&#8217;s nice and an improvement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

