- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:37:08 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12990
Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@googlemail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |alan.christopher.jenkins@go
| |oglemail.com
--- Comment #2 from Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@googlemail.com> 2011-06-21 10:37:07 UTC ---
Sorry, it's hypothetical, but I should be more specific. I'm thinking about
ebooks with appendices, which might contain letters - "Appendix E. Letters and
Correspondence". (And wondering, even if it turns out <footer> isn't really
appropriate for such letters, whether some ebooks might want to include blog
comments in an appendix, using <footer> to attribute each comment).
I'm looking at this as a newb formatter for a Project Gutenberg e-book - HTML
version, whole book as a single file. I'm trying to work out where I might use
<header> and <footer>.
The book I'm starting with is fairly simple. It includes an introduction, with
the writers name at the end, like
<http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19826/19826-h/19826-h.htm#Page_7>. An
unambiguous <footer>.
Then there's a couple of block-quoted letters, and the signatures are formatted
in almost exactly the same way. It makes me want to apply <footer> there too.
I'm not sure that's the best choice, but it doesn't seem invalid either. It
does seem to fit nicely with the "blog comment" example. [Although the letters
are part of a work of fiction...].
Later, I'm trying to work out whether I should enclose the front matter (title
page etc) in <header>. So I look again at the semantics for large <header>s
and <footer>s. I notice that <footer> suggests itself for use in books with
appendix sections. And then I become confused, because one use of an appendix
is to enclose primary source material such as letters. Again, <blockquote> may
well be a red herring - in an appendix of letters only, <article> might be more
appropriate.
The main options seem to be
- permit nesting like this: <footer><section><footer>
- <footer> is not necessarily appropriate for marking up letters. (Perhaps
particularly letters quoted within a section which has a <footer>).
- this spec design isn't focussed on e-books; leave this as an edge case. (But
perhaps try to avoid confusion by e.g. not mentioning appendixes when
discussing <footer>.)
- Perhaps I'm missing something, and the sort of appendixes I'm thinking of
are different to what the writer had in mind. If <footer> isn't really
appropriate for the appendixes I'm thinking of, then there's no conflict. (But
again, perhaps there's a way to make the spec clearer about it).
--
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 Tuesday, 21 June 2011 10:37:10 UTC