- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:30:42 +0100
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- CC: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On 21/03/2013 11:18 , Jirka Kosek wrote: > On 21.3.2013 11:02, Robin Berjon wrote: >> 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 always though that introducing semantic elements like <section> will > not be very useful for HTML. They will be misused as any other HTML > element. HTML is not rigid and semantic format like DocBook or DITA. I beg to differ :) http://alistapart.com/comments/semanticsinhtml5#325554 >> I've therefore been wondering: would it make sense to make section >> invalid if it does not have heading content as its direct children? > > We can even make this more strict and require heading content to be > first child of section. I thought of that, but I think it would break too much existing content that is pretty legit, of the form: <section> <div class='date'>1977-03-15</div> <h2>Blah</h2> ... </section> I don't think we need to constrain things more than needed. >> Put >> differently, what are the use cases for a headless section? > > More sexy <div>? :-) Stick to your <div>s, I'll bring the sexy. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 10:30:56 UTC