Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > The correct solution is not not have such a hackish element in your markup. > I never do. CSS is powerful enough that you don't need it, it just wastes > space.
I completely agree that it would be lovely not to have any "hacky" elements in my mark-up, and just have "header", "aside", "article" , "footer" as my container elements, but I don't know of any way to achieve a centralised and squeezed layout without a container element. E.g.: http://jsfiddle.net/nottrobin/qcqzC/3/ > Is the nav part of the header (in your concept of the page) or not? There's > your answer. My question was whether the nav should be part of the header in the accepted semantic meaning of the elements. But since they put <nav> inside <header> in the W3C's example (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-header-element) I guess it should be. > Sidebars are often <aside> (if they are content that > is tangential to the main content, as they often are) and are also often > <nav>. Sometimes they are neither. Absolutely. I found a good article about <aside> and sidebars: http://html5doctor.com/aside-revisited/ siegfried wrote: > BTW: such a "hackish" element does not only waste space. Every class > attribute classifies its content. So what does it mean, if the content > of the container is classified "container"? The only logically correct > semantic would be, that the content itself is a container of something. > Since any html element is a container of some sort, and > class="container" does not classify the type of the content (i.e. adds > nothing to the semantic of its content), this information is unnecessary. This is an accurate point. However, since (as mentioned above) I have yet to see a solution for the layout I'm looking for (and which is quite common - used on html5doctor.com for example) without using a container element of some kind, I need to have one and I need to call it something. I could call it "meaningless"... > I do often use the w3c aria landmark role values as class values > http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#landmark_roles I like this idea, although the available roles don't seem that useful. > Additionally it might be an idea to check RDFa and f.ex. dublin core for > more useful class names. Unfortunately I haven't found examples of RDFa or Dublin Core being used to add semantics to structure. In conclusion I don't think there does exist a standard for ordering/structure of container elements, and it seems that's probably a good thing. I do agree that it would be nice if I could eliminate "container" elements, so I'm now going to try to work out how to do that. _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
