W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Validity constraints on <section>

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:30:42 +0100
Message-ID: <514AE152.5040603@w3.org>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
CC: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On 21/03/2013 11:18 , Jirka Kosek wrote:
> On 21.3.2013 11:02, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> The specification does have some advice about only using <section> for
>> content that is meant to appear in the document outline, but given that
>> the outline doesn't show up anywhere, that's not something that's ever
>> likely to stop this drift.
>
> I always though that introducing semantic elements like <section> will
> not be very useful for HTML. They will be misused as any other HTML
> element. HTML is not rigid and semantic format like DocBook or DITA.

I beg to differ :)

     http://alistapart.com/comments/semanticsinhtml5#325554

>> I've therefore been wondering: would it make sense to make section
>> invalid if it does not have heading content as its direct children?
>
> We can even make this more strict and require heading content to be
> first child of section.

I thought of that, but I think it would break too much existing content 
that is pretty legit, of the form:

<section>
   <div class='date'>1977-03-15</div>
   <h2>Blah</h2>
   ...
</section>

I don't think we need to constrain things more than needed.

>> Put
>> differently, what are the use cases for a headless section?
>
> More sexy <div>? :-)

Stick to your <div>s, I'll bring the sexy.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 10:30:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:37 UTC