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

[html] Semantics of "aside", "header", and "footer"

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:03:42 +0200
Message-ID: <20070906170342.176290@gmx.net>
To: public-html@w3.org

(Apologies for recent WG discussion and collaboration absence; I moved.)

I need to bring up the "aside" [1], "header" [2], and "footer" [3] elements again, no matter that they've been discussed a few times yet. I'm still not convinced that their names are very appropriate as they seem to be too "presentational" and almost meaningless.

I'm very interested in how you judge that and whether more WG members see those as an issue, and beside asking for your pick, I may illustrate the problem by at the same time proposing alternate names and slightly different/complementary semantics like:

* "auxiliary"/"aux" or "supplement" instead of "aside"; quite more generic and probably the most debatable suggestions here, but also less related to the element's presentation.

* "identity" instead of "header"; I know that more people gripe when it comes to "header" and "footer" (yet with IDs and classes of the same names which seems reasonable to me), and observing people who look for alternatives and also doing a "heuristic analysis" of current use, "identity" seems to be a descriptive and in many cases sufficient alternative for "header".

* "about" instead of "footer"; again, it's just a hasty suggestion, but the situation is similar to "header", and "about" already appears to be an improvement, too.


Regards,
 Jens.


[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#aside
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#header
[3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#footer

-- 
Jens Meiert
http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 17:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC