On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Yuvalik Webdesign <postmas...@yuvalik.org> wrote: >> From: Tab Atkins Jr. >> >> Definitely not; it's part of the application. From your snippet, the >> page seems to be built as a picture-app, which means both the image >> and the thumbnails work together; neither is tangential to the purpose >> of the page like a sidebar would be. > > I think this is the core of the "problem". There is a large grey area where > design and development overlap. Most designers would most definitely *not* > call this an app, but I guess most developers would. > The line between designer and developer is not clearly marked, there is > consensus on both side of the spectrum at the end, but the more you get > towards the middle, the less clear it becomes. > Suppose the example I gave looks like this: > > <iframe src="example1_jpg.html" name="detail"> > > <p> > A long story regarding the companies' origins and goals... > </p> > > <div id="advert">...</div> > > <ul> > <li><a target="detail" href="example1_jpg.html"><img > src="example1_thmb.jpg /></a></li> > <li><a target="detail" href="example2_jpg.html"><img > src="example2_thmb.jpg /></a></li> > <li><a target="detail" href="example3_jpg.html"><img > src="example3_thmb.jpg /></a></li> > <li><a target="detail" href="example4_jpg.html"><img > src="example4_thmb.jpg /></a></li> </ul> > > First of all, this example works more or less the same as the other one, > except this time there is no scripting, so could it technically still be > called an application? > Secondly, it divides the detail-picture from the thumbnails with oodles of > non related content. > > Now, if this means the mark-up in this example should be different from the > previous example, this means the mark-up is therefore not JUST > semantic-related, and that would defy the main intent of HTML5 if I am not > mistaken? > > I hope I am making my point clear?
I don't think the markup should be any different. The thumbnails still appear to be part of the content. The advert in the middle should probably be an <aside>, though. ^_^ ~TJ
