On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Eduard Pascual wrote:
>
> Basically, most of the issues with headings boil down to a single fact:
> the sectioning model is (probably needlessly) over-bloated. [...]
>
> And now, in HTML5, not only have been kept, but a plethora of new
> elements: , , , , , ,
> ; and it ev
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:42:03 +0900, James Robinson
> wrote:
>>
>> Is this sort of reply really necessary? I have not been following the
>> surrounding discussion, but this email showed up as a new thread in my
>> mail client. Based on t
On Sat, 01 May 2010 10:42:03 +0900, James Robinson
wrote:
Is this sort of reply really necessary? I have not been following the
surrounding discussion, but this email showed up as a new thread in my
mail client. Based on this tone, I now have no desire to catch up on
the rest of the discu
Is this sort of reply really necessary? I have not been following the
surrounding discussion, but this email showed up as a new thread in my mail
client. Based on this tone, I now have no desire to catch up on the rest of
the discussion.
- James
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Anne van Kestere
On Sat, 01 May 2010 03:57:42 +0900, Eduard Pascual
wrote:
XHTML2's approach was clean and simple: , , and @role do
everything. Period.
Bullshit:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/mod-structural.html#sec_8.5.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Greg Houston
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> On 30.04.2010 21:47, Greg Houston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think this defeats all the purpose of the different sectioning elements.
>> They want to save code, not let
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> ...
> Putting that together, a section that links to other pages *and*
> consists of content that is tangentially related to the content around
> it *must* be *both* a nav and an aside. The most blatant example
> (which I thought was clear
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
>> Actually, if we try to "implement" the outlining algorithm in
>> the form of selectors that match each level of headings we have:
>> On the case that the -only approach, selecting
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> On 30.04.2010 21:47, Greg Houston wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think this defeats all the purpose of the different sectioning elements.
> They want to save code, not let you state the obvious by class="section"
"class" has one more cha
On 30.04.2010 21:47, Greg Houston wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
So, that's enough of a problem statement (at least for now). My
suggestion is to clean things a bit: consolidate the sectioning model
into a single element+attribute pair, like this:
stays as
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> Actually, if we try to "implement" the outlining algorithm in
> the form of selectors that match each level of headings we have:
> On the case that the -only approach, selecting each level of
> heading requires a list of something raised to
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> So, that's enough of a problem statement (at least for now). My
> suggestion is to clean things a bit: consolidate the sectioning model
> into a single element+attribute pair, like this:
> stays as is.
> becomes
> becomes
> becomes
>
I think I already mentioned this before, but seeing how the issues are
surfacing again, maybe it's worth to revisit the real *roots* of the
problem.
Basically, most of the issues with headings boil down to a single
fact: the sectioning model is (probably needlessly) over-bloated. Some
people will
13 matches
Mail list logo
