Geoff Pack wrote:
I like the idea of the nav and the aside elements: http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-nav http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-asideSo instead of: <html> <head></head> <body> <div id="header"></div> <div id="nav"></div> <div id="content"></div> <div id="sidebar"></div> <div id="footer"></div> </body> </html> We could have: <html> <head></head> <body> <header></header> <nav></nav> <article></article> <aside></aside> <footer></footer> </body> </html> Which is cleaner and more semantic. But it would take years to get it implemented by the browsers and to grow the installed base to the point where we can actually use it. Better to just standardise the id and class names - the web patterns / microformats approach. cheers, Geoff.
Do others feel there are *elements* of presentation creeping back into the structure?
The first approach keeps the semantics of the document whilst providing handles to present the sections of the document.
The second does this by the semantically defining the presentation structure. (IMHO)
I'd prefer to see a direct jump into the xml world (which would drag the soupsayers into the standards world). Maybe it's time for a better semantic language.
Regards Geoff Deering ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
