W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2012

[whatwg] <di>? Please?

From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:45:41 +1100
Message-ID: <4F540CB5.5090500@westnet.com.au>
On 5/03/12 10:06 AM, Hugh Guiney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch>  wrote:
>>> Then why is<section>  in the spec?
>> To make it easier to move subsections around without having to change all
>> the<h5>s to<h4>s and so forth.
> That's it? So the fact that it provides explicit grouping and styling
> are unintentional side-effects? I don't think I've come across a
> single person or article discussing<section>, in the time since its
> introduction, ever even mention rearranging subsections as a benefit
> at all, let alone the *primary* benefit. That's not even mentioned in
> the spec itself?
> Furthermore, for h*, the spec provides examples of semantically
> equivalent document structures, one with<section>s and one without,
> concluding:
>> Authors might prefer the former style for its terseness, or the latter style for its convenience in the face of heavy editing; which is besty [sic] is purely an issue of preferred authoring style.
> If the decision to use<section>  or not is purely an issue of
> preferred authoring style, what makes<di>  any different? Why is in
> inappropriate to have a stopgap grouping element for<dl>  while CSSWG
> works on a syntax for pseudo-grouping (if they even decide to do so),
> yet perfectly fine for sectioning content?

Is there any downside if the people who want this feature just do it 
anyway? The only thing I can think of is that those pages can't be 
claimed to validate. That shouldn't be an issue for personal sites, and 
if enough people start using this it will eventually be added to the spec.

Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 16:45:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:40 UTC