Re: HTML5 feedback from prominent designers

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<> 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>,

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