- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:54:24 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Nicholas C. Zakas wrote: > > As there is also another thread going on about <section/>, I don't want > to repeat all of my comments here, but suffice to say that I don't see > why I'd ever use <section/> when I get implicit sections by using <hn/> > elements. Writers are used to headings indicating sections, and don't > really think of a section as anything on its own. I can understand the > use of <article/> as semantically indicating that the area contains > information rather than markup, but I think <section/> is overkill. I think it won't be used by everyone, but some people have indicated a clear desire to not have to worry about the numbering of headers. > I understand your reasoning for the <aside/> element, perhaps this is > another element that is suffering from the wrong name. Most of web > developers have no idea what an aside is let alone when to use one. I > know that <acronym/> was removed because it confused web developers. > Given that this is the same audience, the ones who couldn't figure out > the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation, do you really > think that <aside/> will get used? Perhaps it would better be named > <callout/>? <sidebar> might be ok, but I wanted to avoid being too specific about the presentation in the name. (<acronym> was removed because it's redundant with <abbr>.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 17:54:24 UTC