- From: Greg Houston <gregory.houston@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:56:39 -0500
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Nikita Popov <privat at ni-po.com> wrote: > On 30.04.2010 21:47, Greg Houston wrote: >> <section class="section"> >> <nav class="section"> >> <aside class="section"> >> <article class="section"> >> <address class="section"> >> > > I think this defeats all the purpose of the different sectioning elements. > They want to save code, not let you state the obvious by class="section" "class" has one more character than "kind" or "type" so you are not saving much on code here. In the CSS, Eduard's proposal requires many more characters for the same thing. Compare: article to: section[kind=article] or: section[type=article] In my example you can still style section without having to overwrite it for every kind or type of section. With Eduards you would need something like this: section[type=section] > I think introducing pseudo-elements that actually do not exist is a step in > the wrong direction. It tries to solve a side effect of the problem, instead > of solcing the problem at it's root. Again, "sectional" is a not a very good name, but think of it as like the "*". Where "*" refers to all elements, "sectional" would refer to a particular subset (elements that are considered types of sections). Some character could be used instead of "sectional" or another name. >From what I can tell that is basically all that is needed, is some selector for different sorts of sections.
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 13:56:39 UTC