On 5/03/12 10:06 AM, Hugh Guiney wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Ian Hickson<i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
Then why is<section> in the spec?
To make it easier to move subsections around without having to change all
the<h5>s to<h4>s and so forth.
That's it? So the fact that it provides explicit grouping and styling
are unintentional side-effects? I don't think I've come across a
single person or article discussing<section>, in the time since its
introduction, ever even mention rearranging subsections as a benefit
at all, let alone the *primary* benefit. That's not even mentioned in
the spec itself…
Furthermore, for h*, the spec provides examples of semantically
equivalent document structures, one with<section>s and one without,
concluding:
Authors might prefer the former style for its terseness, or the latter style
for its convenience in the face of heavy editing; which is besty [sic] is
purely an issue of preferred authoring style.
If the decision to use<section> or not is purely an issue of
preferred authoring style, what makes<di> any different? Why is in
inappropriate to have a stopgap grouping element for<dl> while CSSWG
works on a syntax for pseudo-grouping (if they even decide to do so),
yet perfectly fine for sectioning content?
Is there any downside if the people who want this feature just do it
anyway? The only thing I can think of is that those pages can't be
claimed to validate. That shouldn't be an issue for personal sites, and
if enough people start using this it will eventually be added to the spec.
Sean
