Re: Validity constraints on <section>

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 17 October 2013 12:31, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote:

> 2013-10-17 13:40, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
>> the change does not require a heading for every section. that would be
>> MUST, what it says is SHOULD, but there may be cases , such as you describe
>> where a heading does not make sense.
>>
>
> A SHOULD requirement still requires authors to carefully consider the
> implications etc.
>

as it should



>  The change is designed to encourage authors to think about whether it is
>> appropriate to use an unlabelled section (as it has stated in the spec for
>> some time that sections are for content that would be listed in the
>> document outline) take this example (http://www.awardwinnersonly.**com<http://www.awardwinnersonly.com>)
>> which contains 393 section elements (sourced from from a comment in this
>> post http://blog.paciellogroup.com/**2013/10/using-html5-section-**
>> element/<http://blog.paciellogroup.com/2013/10/using-html5-section-element/>) This is an example ,of many, where the section element is being used
>> contrary to the spec.
>>
>
> If the real problem is misuse of <section>, shouldn’t that be addressed
> directly, rather than saying something quite different (about things that
> SHOULD appear within a <section>)?
>

the spec already said that sections typically include a heading and "A
general rule is that the section element is appropriate only if the
element's contents would be listed explicitly in the document's outline."

to meaningfully be listed in the documents outline it needs some sort of
label typically a heading....



>
> I don’t see how the example page violates the HTML5 CR. On a page that
> provides information about many books, each book can be regarded as a
> topic, so <section> looks quite OK to me (when I take the <section> element
> seriously in the first place).
>

it doesn't violate as there is no requirements, it is contrary to the
advice in the CR spec though (see above)


>
> Besides, although it *would* here make sense to turn the book titles (now
> classed <div>s) to <h3> elements, this is quite independent of the
> <section> issue. Would you say that it would make the use of <section>
> conforming here?
>

I think a single page with such an amount of content is not a good idea.
(opinion) providing a header structure would help.


>
> It would be a different matter if <section> were defined simply as a way
> of specifying the scope of a heading element (to be used when desired to
> make it explicit, or when the scope should differ from the scope inferred
> by certain rules).
>
> --
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~**jkorpela/ <http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/>
>
>
>