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

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

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:51:42 -0700
Message-ID: <000b01c7f0d8$7e62e100$f502000a@internal.toppro.net>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
To: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [html] Semantics of "aside", "header", and "footer"


> 
> 
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Jens Meiert wrote:
> 
>>
>> (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 disagree that they are presentational. Headers, footers and asides  
> are identifiable parts of web documents and indeed non-web documents  
> just as much as paragraphs and sections are. Furthermore, it is hard  
> to see how they are any more presentational than <tfoot>, <thead>,  
> <h1> or <th>.

They are presentational by their names: aside, header and footer - 
so by defintion.

What to do with: 

footer { position: fixed; top:0; }

for example?

Is it still footer or is it header now?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 22:51:54 UTC

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