- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:16:51 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11467 Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mail@tobyinkster.co.uk --- Comment #1 from Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> 2010-12-04 10:16:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > The shortening of "navigation" into the slang term "nav" seems arbitrary, since > other tags in the html5 spec are not swapped for shorter nicknames. Plenty of other elements have shortened names: * <p> instead of <paragraph> * <q> instead of <quote> * <b> instead of <bold> * <i> instead of <italic> * <a> instead of <anchor> * <th> instead of <table-header> * <tr> instead of <table-row> * <col> instead of <column> * <li> instead of <list-item> * <html> instead of <hypertext-markup-language> and so on. The general, but unspoken rule is that if an element is expected to be frequently used (several times on a typical page) and would have an otherwise unwieldy name, an abbreviation is used instead. <navigation> is probably too long considering many pages have several navigation sections in headers, sidebars, footers, etc. So abbreviating it to <nav> seems right. <header> and <footer> seem about right, as most pages will only have one of them, and they're not especially long to begin with. <section> and <article> could go either way, but I'd be in favour of keeping the longer version as it's more obvious to newbies what they mean. (e.g. is <art> for artwork? is <sec> a secure part of the page?) -- 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 Saturday, 4 December 2010 10:16:53 UTC