- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:15:53 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, John Drinkwater <john@nextraweb.com>, Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: >> <section> (or other sectioning element) >> <header/> >> <content/> >> <footer/> >> </section> > > Purely to prevent other elements from being abused, I could buy doing > this... I dunno, though, it seems a bit silly. I'd rather wait to see if > we can evangelise the right markup some more before giving up. A noticeably high fraction of people looking for feedback on their HTML 5 markup on #whatwg have asked which element they should be using for their main content, often thinking they are supposed to use either <section> or <article> when in fact they are looking for <div>. Although this is clearly anecdotal, it suggests that misuse of sectioning elements is going to be a significant problem with wider adoption. Since evangelism generally has a rather high cost and limited payoff I think introducing a new element upfront makes the most sense even without considering the additional benefits such as improved source readability over <div>-based solutions.
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 08:15:26 UTC