Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes: > Hello, > > Kodi Arfer <k...@arfer.net> writes: > >> While I admit I'm not totally sure, in general, when a given fancy >> HTML5 element is appropriate, this case (an intra-page table of >> contents) seems right in line with the second code example here: >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-nav-element >> >> From a1aa357f75cd37ef676f5ac4dbbe66ad66d76aa8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Kodi Arfer <g...@arfer.net> >> Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 17:41:38 -0400 >> Subject: [PATCH] ox-html: Under html5-fancy, use <nav> for the ToC >> >> * lisp/ox-html.el (org-html-toc): Use <nav> instead of <div> >> for the root element when appropriate. > > Applied. Thank you.
Back when we were putting together the html5 stuff, I think we agreed to table the issue of deeper html5 tag use until we'd had a bit of think about the current default behavior of org's html output. Not that I don't think this patch should be accepted -- it's definitely the least controversial of the html5 tags. At the time I think I was thinking that the html org produces by default seemed very much predicated on the creation of unix-y style documentation pages: the prev/next/up links, the preamble and postamble, etc. That seemed strange to me, as my assumption was that most people are not going to be producing that kind of html page. In retrospect that doesn't seem like such a big deal -- it's so easy to turn off, and there's always the body-only switch. So maybe it would just be enough to patch html5 further so that the preamble and postamble use <header> and <footer> tags? The behavior of `org-html-divs' would have to be reconsidered, but it shouldn't have to be anything too momentous... Eric
