W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Feedback on the current editor's draft

From: Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:52:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7F997D.5070208@keryx.se>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2009-08-07 22:46, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> New section tags
> ================
> *<section cite="url">
>    Generic document/application section - cite attribute if content from
>    another page.
 > ---
 > It's not clear why these new elements in particular are necessary.

Extra functionality beyond div is how it affects the headers (h1-h6) and 
makes contents cut 'n paste-able.

I wrote about it here:


As for the other new structural elements:

They were said to be based upon data mining of ids and classes. The most 
often used ones were these. HOWEVER:

Are there any data that people who used e.g. "aside" as a class before 
WHAT WG picked it up and turned it into an element, did so in a 
consistent manner? Might it not be the case that there was an awful lot 
of <div class="aside"> but a multitude of meanings?

Ergo: The fact that there was a lot of usage of specific id or class 
names can not be taken as an indicator per se that there exists a 
"cowpath" to pave.

Can anyone provide scientific data concerning this?

> *<nav>
>    A section with navigation links (uses HTMLElement).

I see a use case where this will make skip links redundant. However, we 
already have aria roles that do the same. The one advantage I see is 
that this element might see more use, being simpler to remember and type.

A discussion about the new structural elements should probably once 
again look at the role attribute, which may be more "crufty", but is 
more flexible.

Lars Gunther
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 03:53:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC