Figuring out

A recent simplequiz over on HTML5 Doctor threw up some interesting semantic issues. Although the figure element wasn’t the main focus of the article, a lot of the comments were concerned with how it could and should be used.

This is a subject that has been covered before on HTML5 Doctor. It turns out that we may have been too restrictive in our use of the element, mistaking some descriptive text in the spec for proscriptive instruction:

The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the document, but that could, without affecting the flow of the document, be moved away from that primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to dedicated pages, or to an appendix.

Steve and Bruce have been campaigning on the HTML mailing list to get the wording updated and clarified.

Meanwhile, in an unrelated semantic question, there was another HTML5 Doctor article a while back about quoting and citing with blockquote and its ilk.

The two questions come together beautifully in a blog post on the newly-redesigned A List Apart documenting this pattern for associating quotations and authorship:

<figure>
 <blockquote>It is the unofficial force—the Baker Street irregulars.</blockquote>
 <figcaption>Sherlock Holmes, <cite>Sign of Four</cite></figcaption>
</figure>

Although, unsurprisingly, I still take issue with the decision in HTML5 not to allow the cite element to apply to people. As I’ve said before we don’t have to accept this restriction:

Join me in a campaign of civil disobedience against the unnecessarily restrictive, backwards-incompatible change to the cite element.

In which case, we get this nice little pattern combining figure, blockquote, cite, and the hCard microformat, like this:

<figure>
 <blockquote>It is the unofficial force—the Baker Street irregulars.</blockquote>
 <figcaption class="vcard"><cite class="fn">Sherlock Holmes</cite>, <cite>Sign of Four</cite></figcaption>
</figure>

Or like this:

<figure>
 <blockquote>Join me in a campaign of civil disobedience against the unnecessarily restrictive, backwards-incompatible change to the cite element.</blockquote>
 <figcaption class="vcard"><cite class="fn">Jeremy Keith</cite>, <a href="http://24ways.org/2009/incite-a-riot/"><cite>Incite A Riot</cite></a></figcaption>
</figure>

The importance of HTML5 sectioning elements by Heydon Pickering

A good explanation of HTML5’s sectioning content and outline algorithm.

Bruce Lawson’s personal site  : Scooby Doo and the proposed HTML5 element

Bruce’s thoughts on the proposed inclusion of a “content” or “maincontent” element in HTML5.

Personally, I don’t think there’s much point in adding a new element when there’s an existing attribute (role=”main”) that does exactly the same thing.

Also, I don’t see much point in adding an element that can only be used once and only once in a document. However, if a “content” or “maincontent” element could be used inside any sectioning content (section, article, nav, aside), then I could see it being far more useful.

HTML5 semantics and accessibility | The Paciello Group Blog

This is a great response to my recent post about semantics in HTML. Steve explores the accessibility implications. I heartily concur with his rallying cry at the end:

Get involved!

Goodbye time, datetime, and pubdate. Hello data and value. | HTML5 Doctor

A very even-handed look at the time and data debacle in HTML5.

Why No Time?

A single-serving website expressing the frustration and bewilderment at Hixie’s unilateral decision to drop the time element from HTML.