- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:52:40 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7551
Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |webmaster@keryx.se
--- Comment #1 from Lars Gunther <webmaster@keryx.se> 2009-09-10 10:52:39 ---
Actually, I think there has been so much talk about the "evils" of div, that
people use section when a div would be the better choice. I've seen quite a lot
of comments that say "section basically is a more semantic div", which is
partly true, but not the whole truth.
I think we need to convey this message: If in doubt whether section is the
better choice than div, use div, since at least the damage done will be less.
(I see an article forming: "Overuse of section considered harmful"... Argh!)
An analogy would be when we first learned that *em* is better than *i*, since
it was semantic, and people started to use em, even though the text actually
was not supposed to be emphasized.
If there was one pedagogic value to XHTML 2 in this regard, it was that it did
away with h1-h6 in favor of the generic h-element. This approach made it clear
to readers exactly how sections did work. Now, I am not arguing that we should
go down the XHTML 2 route. I am only trying to explain some aspects that I
think could be useful in fixing this bug, which is pedagogic in nature.
Would this be a good rule of thumb?
Each section SHOULD contain exactly one heading (except subtitles), preferably
as the first child element of the section. If no heading can be applied in such
a way, one SHOULD use another element than section.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 10:52:49 UTC