- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:27:32 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > The advantage of a <sidebar> element would eventually be that it became more > simple for authors to create e.g. 3 column web pages. And I thought such > simplifications was one of the goals of HTML 5. That's purely a CSS issue. It isn't affected by whether you use <aside> or <sidebar> or <div class="sidebar">; all three are equally easy to select, give or take a character or two. > Compare with HTML 4: It has "div" (even English speakers doesn't know that > it means "division"), "p", "a". Just to mention 3 element names that are too > short to know what they mean. I think it makes perfect sense for an > international language like HTML to use element names that can be pronounced > "natively" in almost any language of the world! ;-) > > What do we see in HTML 5? Answer: "article', 'section', 'aside' etc. These > full length names represent an anglification of the element names HTML. >From HTML 4: <acronym>, <address>, <applet>, <area>, <base>, <basefont>, <big>, <blockquote>, <body>, <button>, <caption>, <center>, <cite>, <code>, <fieldset>, <font>, <form>, <frameset>, <head>, <input>, <isindex>, <label>, <legend>, <link>, <map>, <menu>, <noframes>, <noscript>, <object>, <option>, <script>, <select>, <small>, <span>, <strike>, <strong>, <style>, <table>, <textarea>, <title>. In any event, I don't think there's any value in making things equally incomprehensible to speakers of all languages.
Received on Sunday, 6 September 2009 17:28:06 UTC