- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:51:42 -0700
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com> To: "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com> Cc: <public-html@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [html] Semantics of "aside", "header", and "footer" > > > On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Jens Meiert wrote: > >> >> (Apologies for recent WG discussion and collaboration absence; I >> moved.) >> >> I need to bring up the "aside" [1], "header" [2], and "footer" [3] >> elements again, no matter that they've been discussed a few times >> yet. I'm still not convinced that their names are very appropriate >> as they seem to be too "presentational" and almost meaningless. > > I disagree that they are presentational. Headers, footers and asides > are identifiable parts of web documents and indeed non-web documents > just as much as paragraphs and sections are. Furthermore, it is hard > to see how they are any more presentational than <tfoot>, <thead>, > <h1> or <th>. They are presentational by their names: aside, header and footer - so by defintion. What to do with: footer { position: fixed; top:0; } for example? Is it still footer or is it header now? Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 22:51:54 UTC