- From: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:57:45 +0100
- To: Aurelio De Rosa <aurelioderosa@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com>
So, how do you propose to define what <content> represents? As a container element it is a thematic grouping. This is identical to <section> which is a thematic grouping with hierarchical context. What do you want to be able to do? If it is to simply lookup the "content" of the page as a unique concept, this is defined as an article, which in turn may be nested. You can not get around the implications of compound context, do you seek to restrict <content> to a single instance per document? Are you going to restrict <content> to a single instance per context? Or is it a free element which can be defined anywhere and multiple times? a new element does not offer any benefits over what is currently defined. cam On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Aurelio De Rosa <aurelioderosa@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Ian about the use of <article> and <section>, the > specifications are really clear on those elements. The are used to wrap an > entire entry, not the "content" (in the meaning Ian stated). > > The read question for me is: What is the problem of having the content at > the same level of <header> and <footer> (for example inside an <article>)? > > Can't we treat everything inside an article which is not in <header> or > <footer> is the real "content"? > > Best regards > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As described in whatwg specs, a <section>, in this context, is a thematic >> grouping of content, typically with a heading. >> >> As for a <article>, which usually contains its own <header> and <footer>, >> is used to form an independent content like blog entry, comment, or >> application. >> >> Both section and article elements are not the candidate for containing a >> website or a blog entry's main content. That obviously is the reason that >> the example of the nav in HTML5 spec doesn't use them. >> >> Regards, >> Ian Yang >> >> 2012/6/29 Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com> >> >> > If the content is a special section within the document you should use >> > the <section> element which has semantic meaning over <div>. >> > Alternatively you could use <article> if it's distinct and >> > self-contained. These two elements serve to disambiguate the abstract >> > idea of content into something with semantic meaning which can be >> > instrumented by document consumers. >> > >> > cam >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Ashley Sheridan >> > <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > Ian Yang <ian.html@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >>Hi editors in chief and everyone else, >> > >> >> > >>How have you been recently? >> > >> >> > >>As many of you may have been aware that there is an important >> > >>sectioning >> > >>element we have been short of for a long time: the "content" element. >> > >> >> > >>Remember how we sectioned our documents in those old days? It's the >> > >>meaningless <div>s. We used them and added id="header", id="content", >> > >>id="sidebar", and id="footer" to them. >> > >> >> > >>After HTML5 came out, we started to have new and semantic elements like >> > >>"header", "aside", and "footer" to improve our documents. >> > >> >> > >>However, today, we are still using the meaningless <div> for our >> > >>content. >> > >> >> > >>The main content forms an important region. And we often wrap it with >> > >>an >> > >>element. By doing so, we distinguish the region from the header and the >> > >>footer, and also prevent all of its child elements (block level or >> > >>inline >> > >>level) being incorrectly at the same level as the header and the >> > >>footer. >> > >> >> > >>In the first example of the intro section of the nav element in HTML5 >> > >>Spec >> > >>( http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#the-nav-element ) (the >> > >>page >> > >>takes a while to be fully loaded), the bottom note states: "Notice the >> > >>div >> > >>elements being used to wrap all the contents of the page other than the >> > >>header and footer, and all the contents of the blog entry other than >> > >>its >> > >>header and footer." >> > >> >> > >>This example mentioned above is a typical situation that we need an >> > >>element >> > >>for the main content. So instead of keep wrapping our contents with the >> > >>meaningless <div>, why not let the "content" element join HTML5? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Sincerely, >> > >>Ian Yang >> > >>Meaningful and semantic HTML lover | Front-end developer >> > > >> > > I am pretty sure this was discussed a few months back and the answer >> was >> > that everything is content, so no need for a content element. The >> <header> >> > and <footer> just mark up areas of that content with special meaning, but >> > its still all the main content. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Ash >> > > http://ashleysheridan.co.uk >> > >> > > > > -- > Aurelio De Rosa > email: aurelioderosa@gmail.com > email: a.derosa@audero.it > website: www.audero.it > user group: ug.audero.it
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 13:58:14 UTC