W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2015

Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element

From: Delfi Ramirez <delfin@segonquart.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:40:46 +0200
To: Pontus Horn af Rantzien <pontus.horn@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <154eae465b789f9a42fc7f3360dbefc2@correoweb.segonquart.net>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Jonathan Zuckerman <j.zuckerman@gmail.com>, Martin Janecke <whatwg.org@prlbr.com>
 

Pontus, you are right noticing the domain HAD or HAS nothing to do
necessarily, and the idea exposed before here in this thread was just
this, _an idea_. a WILL or a MIGHT. 

Just keep in mind these _gTLD_ are new -- we would have not imagine
years ago, one will have to deal with specific domains like "dev" which
will open new uses for the web. New IPv6, comes in mind. 

My observations were just annotations to what is defined in the section
4.3.7 of the living HTML5.1 spec for the element _<header>_. 

In our modern era of linked data, I just noticed there is a certain
misuse, and some unresolved circumstances , for structural elements
presented in a website. And the HTML spec SHOULD have to solve these
inaccuracies. 

Of course, as it has been mentioned in this thread before, we do have
structural elements like <div> or <span> that can handle well our needs
of_ flowing content_. 

Surfing the web through a weareable, not a device, makes this
requirement, expressed above, more clear._ "Siri , find me the logo of
the company XXX, an place it in the upper left of the page "providers"
featured in my website"_. A <logo> tag would be nice for the search of
Siri, wouldn't be? 

Solution: Taking in consideration, if I am not wrong, that an HTML
element is _not just a tag_, probably, an ARIA _role "logo"_ would
accomplish these needs easily. 

My suggestion -- and <logo> was just one -- goes far from this solution,
it is for a future extension of what represents a_ non-sectioning_
element like _<header>_,_ <footer>_ wrapping _sectioning_ content, like
the element <h1>. 

To apply the same methods done in HTML3.1 , in our century, when we are
making websites and see the rendered result in a browser, makes no sense
to me.But who knows. 

Apologies for the verbosity 

Cheers 

---

Delfi Ramirez

My digital signature [5]

+34 633 589231
 delfin@segonquart.net [6] 

twitter: delfinramirez

 IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [7]

http://segonquart.net [3]

http://delfiramirez.info
 [4]

On 2015-07-01 23:18, Pontus Horn af Rantzien wrote: 

> The domain does not necessarily correspond to or have any relation to the website name. Furthermore, the domain is not necessarily readable language - how does a screen reader know how to pronounce alistapart.com [1]? It could just as well read Ali's Tap Art. 
> 
> You're right that it could have some security implications if presented as trustworthy, but I'd argue there are ways to hinder that as long as it's taken into account in specification. 
> 
> Pontus
> 
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 at 22:31 Jonathan Zuckerman <j.zuckerman@gmail.com> wrote: 
> I agree that the title/banner/logo element doesn't add much value. I don't feel like a tag to canonically declare the website name would add much value either - isn't that what the domain is for? Also the tag wouldn't be very trustworthy - the domain is less easy to lie about. 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Pontus Horn af Rantzien <pontus.horn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 [2]
>> delfin@segonquart.net [2]
>>
>> twitter: delfinramirez
>>
>> IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3]
>>
>> http://segonquart.net [3] [4]
>>
>> http://delfiramirez.info [4]
>> [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 [5]
>> [2] mail:%20delfin@segonquart.net
>> [3] skype:segonquart
>> [4] http://segonquart.net [3]
>> [5] http://delfiramirez.info [4]
>> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Pontus Horn af Rantzien <pontus.horn@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 [2]
>> delfin@segonquart.net [2]
>>
>> twitter: delfinramirez
>>
>> IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3]
>>
>> http://segonquart.net [3] [4]
>>
>> http://delfiramirez.info [4]
>> [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 [5]
>> [2] mail:%20delfin@segonquart.net
>> [3] skype:segonquart
>> [4] http://segonquart.net [3]
>> [5] http://delfiramirez.info [4]
>>
 

Links:
------
[1] http://alistapart.com
[2] tel:%2B34%20633%20589231
[3] http://segonquart.net
[4] http://delfiramirez.info
[5] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc
[6] mail:%20delfin@segonquart.net
[7] skype:segonquart
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:41:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 1 July 2015 22:41:15 UTC