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

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

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:16:09 +0200
Message-ID: <20070910111609.176270@gmx.net>
To: public-html@w3.org

> "header", "footer", "aside" seem to be bad names for "banner",  
> "masthead" and "note". But maybe people understand them better as  
> well.

Right, but I guess there are quite a few elements then that could use new names. It also doesn't solve the problem that these names imply a certain kind of presentation, and beside the general problem with that, does it really work everywhere? 

> I guess the proposed names come from the class names found on the  
> Web.

I don't really consider this to be a good argument. Even if you don't think about other things people do that are not necessarily “beneficial”, Ian's stats also show popular class names like “small”, “text”, or even “white” [1]. Like nobody seriously considered to introduce a “white” element, there probably shouldn't be something like “header” or “footer”.

As far as I also understand recent feedback on that matter, we certainly don't make a mistake by reconsidering the names and probably even modify the semantics of “header”, “footer”, and “aside”. (Probably flanked by a quick survey?)


[1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html

-- 
Jens Meiert
http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 11:16:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:07 GMT