W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > November 2010

Re: bug 11256 [was: Outline when article is entire body of document]

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <829348.34568.qm@web112607.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: "Michael\(tm\) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Thanks Mike,

It was really more of a philosophical point ...

Do you want to leave something for the archaeologists or not ?  I think there is a case to be made that doing this promoted the www, and HTML in earlier times, but that artifacts are much less useful when the virtual catalog is large.  Or maybe it proves that Dinosaurs used HTML 4.01, and maybe even HTML 3.2.  Not sure :o)

--Gannon

--- On Mon, 11/8/10, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:

From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
Subject: bug 11256 [was: Outline when article is entire body of document]
To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org, "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>
Date: Monday, November 8, 2010, 7:34 PM

Note that James raised a bug for this in our bugzilla database:

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11256

I reposted your comment there, and feel free to follow up with further
discussion there. Or at least to Cc yourself on the bug.

  --Mike

Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, 2010-11-08 06:28 -0800:

> Just my 2 cents.  I'm not going to tell James Clark things about XML he doesn't know :o)
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to put a "nosection" boolean attribute on the <html> instead of <body>  ... the meaning would be no metadata except for <title> and <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="foo" />
> 
> The reductio ad absurdum HTML document (stripped of <article> fragments) would then be truly empty.
> 
> --- On Sun, 11/7/10, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:
> 
> From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
> Subject: Outline when article is entire body of document
> To: public-html-comments@w3.org
> Date: Sunday, November 7, 2010, 9:17 PM
> 
> The HTML5 <article> element seems potentially very useful, but there
> seems to me to be an aspect of the overall design that makes it work
> not quite as well as it might.
> 
> I'm guessing that HTML5 is designed to support the scenario where an
> author creates create potentially reusable chunks of HTML5 content,
> which are then assembled by the publishing system into valid HTML5
> documents, where these reusable chunks would typically use <article>
> or <section> as their root element.  The problem with the current
> design seems to me to occur when you want such a chunk to be the
> entire content of a page.  I don't see any way to get the "right"
> outline without modifying the reusable chunk. If I simply wrap the
> <article> in a <body> in the obvious way:
> 
> <html>
> <head>...</head>
> <body>
> <article>
> <h1>Article title</h1>
> ...
> </article>
> </body>
> </html>
> 
> then I get an outline, according to [1], where the <body> node is a
> section with an implied heading containing a single section with a
> "Article title" heading, whereas I would want to get the same outline
> as:
> 
> <html>
> <head>...</head>
> <body>
> <h1>Article title</h1>
> ...
> </body>
> </html>
> 
> One way round this might be a "nosection" boolean attribute on <body>,
> which would say to the outline algorithm not to create a section for
> the <body> element, and which would be valid only when the <body>
> element consists of a single sectioning content element.
> 
> James
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#outlines

-- 
Michael(tm) Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 17:31:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:14:05 GMT