Peter Asquith wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
Do others feel there are *elements* of presentation creeping back
into the structure?
Absolutely, <header> and <footer> elements, to my mind, break the
semantics of separating the presentation from content. Once you say
"this element represents the footer for the section it applies to"
surely you're suggesting the physical layout of the presentation?
The idea of <aside> has more merit since it describes the "weight" of
the content with respect to the rest of the page but doesn't suggest
placement on the page. And I agree that the idea of a <nav> tag seems
sound assuming you agree that navigation is inherent to the content.
It looks like the draft has been prepared with a standard page layout
strongly in mind (see:
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#sectioning) and that
may not lend itself well to media that we may not yet have invented to
display/experience the content.
Cheers
Peter
The logical extension of your argument is that we should never use
h1..h6 either! Isn't it?
Bob McClelland
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
