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

Re: Proposal: <content> element

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 21:45:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0909022145050.6775@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, James Graham wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > <section> (or other sectioning element)
> > >   <header/>
> > >   <content/>
> > >   <footer/>
> > > </section>
> > 
> > Purely to prevent other elements from being abused, I could buy doing 
> > this... I dunno, though, it seems a bit silly. I'd rather wait to see 
> > if we can evangelise the right markup some more before giving up.
> 
> A noticeably high fraction of people looking for feedback on their HTML 5
> markup on #whatwg have asked which element they should be using for their main
> content, often thinking they are supposed to use either <section> or <article>
> when in fact they are looking for <div>. Although this is clearly anecdotal,
> it suggests that misuse of sectioning elements is going to be a significant
> problem with wider adoption.

Adding more elements isn't going to reduce this. It'll just add yet more 
elements to have confusion about.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 21:43:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:07 UTC