W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2008

[whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:54:24 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0807310052500.3299@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Nicholas C. Zakas wrote:
> 
> As there is also another thread going on about <section/>, I don't want 
> to repeat all of my comments here, but suffice to say that I don't see 
> why I'd ever use <section/> when I get implicit sections by using <hn/> 
> elements. Writers are used to headings indicating sections, and don't 
> really think of a section as anything on its own. I can understand the 
> use of <article/> as semantically indicating that the area contains 
> information rather than markup, but I think <section/> is overkill.

I think it won't be used by everyone, but some people have indicated a 
clear desire to not have to worry about the numbering of headers.


> I understand your reasoning for the <aside/> element, perhaps this is 
> another element that is suffering from the wrong name. Most of web 
> developers have no idea what an aside is let alone when to use one. I 
> know that <acronym/> was removed because it confused web developers. 
> Given that this is the same audience, the ones who couldn't figure out 
> the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation, do you really 
> think that <aside/> will get used? Perhaps it would better be named 
> <callout/>?

<sidebar> might be ok, but I wanted to avoid being too specific about the 
presentation in the name.

(<acronym> was removed because it's redundant with <abbr>.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 17:54:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:04 UTC