- From: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:25:24 +0100
Henri wrote: > http://adactio.com/journal/1607/ Ah, you beat me to it. I was just about to write an email to the list, honestly. ;-) So anyway, the upshot of my somewhat unscientific survey[1] conducted at a workshop a couple of weeks ago is that there is great confusion between the <section> and <article> elements. In that blog post, I point out that <section> and <article> were once more divergent but have converged over time (since the @cite and @pubdate attributes were dropped from <article>). I've also seen a lot of confusion from authors wondering when to use <section> and when to use <article>. Bruce wrote an article on HTML5 doctor recently to address this: http://html5doctor.com/the-section-element/ Probably the best tutorial I've seen on this issue is from Ted: http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/09/using-the-html5-sectioning-elements ...but even so, the confusion remains. The very fact that tutorials are required for what should be intuitive structural elements is worrying ? I don't see the same issues around <nav>, <header> or <footer> (now that the content model has been changed) ...although there is continuing confusion around <aside>. Anyway... Is there a strong enough case for having two separate new elements or they close enough in functionality that one of them could be dropped? Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about which element name should be dropped, but I do think that dropping one of them would make life easier for authors. Thoughts? [1] Details of the exercise: http://adactio.com/journal/1605/ -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com/
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 07:25:24 UTC