- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:46:05 +0200
Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: [quotation reorganized by me] > On 2/27/11, usuario <soyhobo at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Tiis may seem somewhat silly, every front-end developer have ever >> used a a wrapper div, shouldn't it be more semantic to have a >> wrapper element? > > If said wrappers don't have any semantics but grouping loosely related > elements, for which no semantic container exists, div seems > appropriate. I guess you mean a group that is not best describable as <nav> or <footer> or <section> or some of the other semantic elements. The most obvious candidate is the "content proper", as people often use, mainly for styling purposes, grouping together any content that is not a header, a navigation block, or a footer. In some cases, you might make it <article> or <section>, but if those don't apply naturally, it should be <div>. It is better to be semantically empty than to be semantically wrong, or even bordeline. > What semantics would such an wrapper element provide over <div>? I'd > rather discourage, and provide alternative features to wrapping. > Providing another element for that purpose goes against that. Thinking purely logically (if we dare), <wrapper> would have the benefit of explicitly saying "this is a wrapper for grouping, for no semantic reason", thereby distinguishing it from <div> which may, and often does, involve semantic or logical grouping. For example, <div id="footer"> is probably a footer of some kind, not arbitrary grouping. But thinking pragmatically, it is difficult to see strong reasons to distinguishing wrappers from legacy use of <div>. Moreover, I don't think people would use <wrapper> much, since they can use <div> and are accustomed to <div>. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 27 February 2011 12:46:05 UTC