- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:16:42 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23490 --- Comment #7 from Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> --- (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #6) > > Because a section element without a heading is not a problem. It is often > > quite adequate, as I described. > > you didm't actually describe it. I gave a an example of a novel section divided into subsections. > > “should” is a serious word – and the spec defines “should” to mean what RFC > > 2119 says. > > and that is why it was used. Taken in the RFC 2119 sense, as it should, it is in not “soft”. As you quote: > the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. How is an author even assumed to weight the implications when no rationale for the requirement is given? > is reasonable as the provision of a heading is recommended in most > circumstances. Recommended by whom, and why? It is evident that a heading is useful in many cases. So evident that it hardly makes sense to say it in normative prose (even as a “should” requirement) in a specification. In other cases, the requirement would be confusing at best, and could even make people write dummy heading content if they take the requirement seriously. > The lack of clarity around the use of section has already > resulted in widespread misuse which has had a negative effect on users. Which widespread misuse with which negative effect on users? The section element has no impact on users, really. And if some content should have a heading, then it should have a heading quite independently of use of a section element – so the context would be wrong for advocacy of headings even if we thought that such advocacy belongs to HTML5. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 20:16:44 UTC