Henri wrote:
http://adactio.com/journal/1607/
Ah, you beat me to it. I was just about to write an email to the list,
honestly. ;-)
So anyway, the upshot of my somewhat unscientific survey[1] conducted
at a workshop a couple of weeks ago is that there is great confusion
between the <section> and <article> elements.
In that blog post, I point out that <section> and <article> were once
more divergent but have converged over time (since the @cite and
@pubdate attributes were dropped from <article>).
I've also seen a lot of confusion from authors wondering when to use
<section> and when to use <article>. Bruce wrote an article on HTML5
doctor recently to address this:
http://html5doctor.com/the-section-element/
Probably the best tutorial I've seen on this issue is from Ted:
http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/09/using-the-html5-sectioning-elements
...but even so, the confusion remains. The very fact that tutorials
are required for what should be intuitive structural elements is
worrying — I don't see the same issues around <nav>, <header> or
<footer> (now that the content model has been changed) ...although
there is continuing confusion around <aside>.
Anyway...
Is there a strong enough case for having two separate new elements or
they close enough in functionality that one of them could be dropped?
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about which element name
should be dropped, but I do think that dropping one of them would make
life easier for authors.
Thoughts?
[1] Details of the exercise: http://adactio.com/journal/1605/
--
Jeremy Keith
a d a c t i o
http://adactio.com/
