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-aside
So 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
******************************************************