- From: Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:16:13 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYOhStt-5JgLYze=mjCG2ASk7A59SS+Ss2mGLC2fXOPa3qCWA@mail.gmail.com>
I'm inclined to agree with this as I too see <section> being used where a <div> would have sufficed, and in most cases no heading is included. The same could be said for <article> to be honest. For me both of them should have a heading. When I'm marking up content, if it has a specific heading, then it's a good indication that <section> or <article> should be used. So I would support making a <section> (and <article>) without a heading invalid. On 21 March 2013 11:02, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > Hi, > > there are increasing concerns over the excessive use of <section>. Some > authors seem to basically think of it as "sexy modern <div>" for no > particular reason (a good example: http://lockerz.com/). > > The specification does have some advice about only using <section> for > content that is meant to appear in the document outline, but given that the > outline doesn't show up anywhere, that's not something that's ever likely > to stop this drift. > > I've therefore been wondering: would it make sense to make section invalid > if it does not have heading content as its direct children? Put > differently, what are the use cases for a headless section? > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > > -- ian devlin e: ian@iandevlin.com w: www.iandevlin.com t: @iandevlin <http://www.twitter.com/iandevlin> skype: idevlin buy my book: html5 multimedia: develop and design<http://html5multimedia.com>
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 10:16:47 UTC