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 21:31:43 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23490-2486-pq7nq0fuPr@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #8 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Jukka K. Korpela from comment #7)
> (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:

it is soft compared to MUST
> >    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?

that is an argument for better explanation in the spec - noted

> > 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.

recommended in the spec and no it would mean that authors don't use the section
element as a replacement for a div which they currently are doing.

> > 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.

The section element maps to a region role in accessibility APIs (as required in
HTML5), region roles are exposed to users. and its misuse does have a negative
effect as reported by users. sections also have an effect upon the document
outline and their misuse could have a negative effect upon users if any user
agent implements the outline algorithm.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 21:31:44 UTC

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