- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:52:40 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7551 Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |webmaster@keryx.se --- Comment #1 from Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> 2009-09-10 10:52:39 --- Actually, I think there has been so much talk about the "evils" of div, that people use section when a div would be the better choice. I've seen quite a lot of comments that say "section basically is a more semantic div", which is partly true, but not the whole truth. I think we need to convey this message: If in doubt whether section is the better choice than div, use div, since at least the damage done will be less. (I see an article forming: "Overuse of section considered harmful"... Argh!) An analogy would be when we first learned that *em* is better than *i*, since it was semantic, and people started to use em, even though the text actually was not supposed to be emphasized. If there was one pedagogic value to XHTML 2 in this regard, it was that it did away with h1-h6 in favor of the generic h-element. This approach made it clear to readers exactly how sections did work. Now, I am not arguing that we should go down the XHTML 2 route. I am only trying to explain some aspects that I think could be useful in fixing this bug, which is pedagogic in nature. Would this be a good rule of thumb? Each section SHOULD contain exactly one heading (except subtitles), preferably as the first child element of the section. If no heading can be applied in such a way, one SHOULD use another element than section. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 10:52:49 UTC