W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2013

[Bug 23490] strengthen advice on when to use a section

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:16:42 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23490-2486-XUmcWK1TRQ@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23490

--- Comment #7 from Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> ---
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #6)

> > Because a section element without a heading is not a problem. It is often
> > quite adequate, as I described. 
> 
> you didm't actually describe it.

I gave a an example of a novel section divided into subsections.

> > “should” is a serious word – and the spec defines “should” to mean what RFC
> > 2119 says.
> 
> and that is why it was used.

Taken in the RFC 2119 sense, as it should, it is in not “soft”. As you quote:

>    the full implications must be understood and
>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

How is an author even assumed to weight the implications when no rationale for
the requirement is given?

> is reasonable as the provision of a heading is recommended in most
> circumstances.

Recommended by whom, and why? It is evident that a heading is useful in many
cases. So evident that it hardly makes sense to say it in normative prose (even
as a “should” requirement) in a specification. In other cases, the requirement
would be confusing at best, and could even make people write dummy heading
content if they take the requirement seriously.

> The lack of clarity around the use of section has already
> resulted in widespread misuse which has had a negative effect on users.

Which widespread misuse with which negative effect on users?

The section element has no impact on users, really. And if some content should
have a heading, then it should have a heading quite independently of use of a
section element – so the context would be wrong for advocacy of headings even
if we thought that such advocacy belongs to HTML5.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 20:16:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:44 UTC