W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2008

Re: Implicit sections (was: Re: several messages about <section>, <p>, <hr>, and related subjects)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:57:18 +0000 (UTC)
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0802271944570.6407@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Simon Pieters wrote:
>
> I had in mind software that normalized documents to use explicit 
> sectioning elements, since the spec encourages authors to use explicit 
> sectioning elements:
> 
>    Authors are also encouraged to explictly wrap sections in elements of
>    sectioning content, instead of relying on the implicit sections
>    generated by having multiple heading in one element of sectioning
>    content.
> 
> ...but, since it's not allowed to use multiple <body>s, the case above 
> can't be normalized to explicit sections without changing the outline.
> 
> I don't feel strongly about it, but I think the spec should rather 
> encourage authors to not let content "slip out of their parent" as in 
> the case above (because it feels dirty), than to encourage authors to 
> use explicit sectioning elements (I think implicit sections are fine so 
> long as they are inside the parent sectioning element).

I think it should encourage both, but I can't work out how to phrase the 
former in a comprehensible way.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 19:57:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:53 UTC