Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element

I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website
title/logo/branding as shown in-page.

I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside
<head>, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site
you're not familiar with via search results, a link, etc. You skip to the
content as that's what you're interested in, but you like the content and
want to find out the name of the website. To my knowledge, there's no go-to
place for that information. It might be part of the <title> or an <h1>, but
both of those elements relate more to the page than the larger site.

To me it'd make sense to define such an element as a companion to <title>.
Many authors currently lump the website name and the page title together in
an arbitrary format inside <title>. Having a separate element for the
website name would serve to discourage that, and would let user agents
present the two pieces of information in a consistent and predictable way.

Regards,
Pontus

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 12:46 Delfi Ramirez <delfin@segonquart.net> wrote:

>
>
> <logo> sounds nice to me.
>
> As far as we move onto standarized browsers and mobile devices as the
> way we connect to the web, the proposed <logo> could be equal to the
> reference or representation shown in _svg=icon _or_ link-rel="ico"_
>
> Just thinking.
>
> ---
>
> Delfi Ramirez
>
> My digital signature [1]
>
> +34 633 589231
>  delfin@segonquart.net [2]
>
> twitter: delfinramirez
>
>  IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3]
>
> http://segonquart.net [4]
>
> http://delfiramirez.info
>  [5]
>
> On 2015-06-30 11:48, Martin Janecke wrote:
>
> > On 30.06.15 03:18, Garrett Smith wrote:
> > On 6/29/15, Barry Smith <bearzteez@live.com> wrote: From: "Garrett
> Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> Hey Garrett, My apologizes for not
> replying until now. When I posted my reply to the "Site-Wide Heading
> Element" thread, you were right and I should have posted a more complete
> example. Here is what I should have given as an example: <header
> id="banner"> <script src="scripts/header.js"
> type="text/javascript"></script> <noscript> <div class="styledText"> <div
> class="letterM">M</div> <div class="word">y</div> </div> <div
> class="styledText"> <div class="letterW">W</div> <div class="word">eb</div>
> </div> <div class="styledText"> <div class="letterS">S</div> <div
> class="word">ite</div> </div> </noscript> </header> Using the <div> element
> for purely stylistic purposes. Placing them within the <noscript> element
> displays the exact same header as is in the embedded <script> element, but
> without the additional animation used in the javascript file. I would use
> an H1 with text-transform
>  :
> capitalize and avoid using divs and javascript.
>
> I agree with avoiding JavaScript. I am not sure about text-transform,
> because I don't know which styling the author had in mind. He may want
> to color every word's first letter differently.
>
> <div> is actually a neutral "block" element. The neutral "inline"
> element <span> would seem like the better choice to wrap letters or
> single words in the example. But you could wrap the whole line into one
> <div>.
>
> I would not use <h1> because "My Website" is neither a heading for the
> content of the page (unless maybe on the front page or a sitemap) nor
> for a section of the page. It could be intended as a title for the whole
> website, i.e. all its pages together, or as some kind of logo or
> branding. I don't think we have a dedicated element for either of these
> interpretations.
>
> Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning "title
> for the entirety of pages of a website". How would this be interpreted,
> if such an element is used with different content on different pages of
> the same website? I think such an element would cause inconsistencies
> all the time. It isn't a good idea.
>
> Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning "logo,
> branding". What would its benefits be compared to <div>? And would
> authors still want to use it if add-blockers get a little more
> aggressive and offer the option to block logos?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc
> [2] mail:%20delfin@segonquart.net
> [3] skype:segonquart
> [4] http://segonquart.net
> [5] http://delfiramirez.info
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2015 20:25:07 UTC