W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: 3.8.10. The address element

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:35:22 -0500
Message-Id: <D884ACD1-50EF-472F-8324-CDC8F30C07E7@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>

Hi Ben and Smylers,

On Aug 7, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Smylers wrote:

> Ben Boyle writes:
>> On 8/8/07, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>>> <address> is not a sectioning element.
>> That's good news for HTML; bad news for the spec. The spec reads  
>> as if
>> address elements are sections and definitely requires clarification.
> Which bit reads like that to you?  Contrast, for example, <aside>  
> which
> is described as:
>   Sectioning block-level element
> with <address> as:
>   Block-level element

I  had the same problem reading this as Ben, so I definitely see the  
ambiguity. I think part of the problem is that the chapter "Sections"  
includes several elements that are not "sectioning elements": in  
particular ADDRESS and H!  H6. That makes it easy to think all of  
the elements in the chapter are sectioning element. It might be  
better to rename the chapter to something like: "Sections and their  
metadata". Then it has the HEADER element and the FOOTER element that  
are ambiguous because they both signify metadata containers and  
suggest a section (as in a site HEADER and FOOTER). Finally  
BLOCKQUOTE is thrown in here (and then excluded from the outlining  
algorithm) for no particular reason.

> That seems unambiguous that the spec doesn't think <address> is
> sectioning, something re-inforced by the introduction to the Sections
> section, where the paragraph immediately after the definition of
> 'sectioning elements' shows that <address> elements are something that
> appear inside section elements:
>   Some elements are scoped to their nearest ancestor sectioning  
> element.
>   For example, address elements apply just to their section.
> Is there somewhere else I missed which gives a contradictory  
> impression?

Again, it's the exposition of all of this as a whole. There is not  
enough care taken to avoid confusion for readers.

>> "Sectioning elements" should explicitly state the element names.
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#sectioning
> That's a good idea.

This is needed for each element kind. Providing lists of the elements  
take the burden off the prose defining the element kind.

Take care,
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 18:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC