W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Validity constraints on <section>

From: Ian Devlin <ian@iandevlin.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:16:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOYOhStt-5JgLYze=mjCG2ASk7A59SS+Ss2mGLC2fXOPa3qCWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:01 UTC