W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2011

[Bug 12990] The footer element (Sections, Elements of HTML). Request for clarification. Re: Interaction of <blockquote> with the prohibition on nested <footer>s. "When the footer element contains entire sections, they represent appendices, indexes, long colophons, ve

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:06:22 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R6Vry-0006Tu-9b@jessica.w3.org>

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |LATER

--- Comment #6 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-09-21 23:06:20 UTC ---
Those are some valid examples, I think. I wonder how common they are.

I'm going to mark this bug "LATER" for now, so that we can collect experience
with the current state of things and see what the right direction is here. I
agree with the points you've raised.

The reason I'm not just doing what you suggest is that there is a cost to
allowing arbitrary markup — we fail to catch authoring errors, and we
encourage rather messy markup. Whether the cost is higher or lower than the
gains is unclear, which is why I haven't simply rejected the bug.

In the meantime, please don't hesitate to add more examples of indirectly
nested footers, especially on real pages or documents. Also worth looking for
it sites where people nest footers incorrectly (i.e. where they do it but it
doesn't make sense).

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 Wednesday, 21 September 2011 23:06:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:04 UTC