- From: Hugh Guiney <hugh.guiney@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:06:10 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@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?
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2012 23:06:58 UTC