Hi all:
There was mentioned <logo> as a descendant element of the sectioning
<header> element, just as an idea to solve the needs of the unacurate
use of the <header> element it seems it occurs in our daily use, with
the current spec.
I could imagine other semantic elements,as long as e undertand the new
uses population make of websites and the web.
A <logo> element seems reasonable to me, both in a semantical and in a
structural mode.
Imagine:
* Representing the page in other pages or directories ( through an API
that crawls, search and makes an scrutiny of the pages, brands and its
referenced logos ) . Solves the exposed in nightly spec, mentioned in my
last mail.
* <logo> As a possible linked reference or representation for new
gTLDs.
* Linked Correspondence between the <logo> and the <icon> an app has ,
or a bookmark visualizes, in a mobile scenario. Think of weareables
connected to web pages.
* A element acting as a reference for an object, that takes the weight
offto other <header> elements descendants like <img> and <h1>, which, in
my consideration are heavily misused, due to old practices.
Stop my verbosity. Thank you for taking time in reading these notes.
Cheers
---
Delfi Ramirez
My digital signature [3]
+34 633 589231
del...@segonquart.net [4]
twitter: delfinramirez
IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [5]
http://segonquart.net [1]
http://delfiramirez.info
[2]
On 2015-07-01 22:24, Pontus Horn af Rantzien wrote:
> I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website
> title/logo/branding as shown in-page.
> I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside
> <head>, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site
> you're not familiar with via search results, a link, etc. You skip to the
> content as that's what you're interested in, but you like the content and
> want to find out the name of the website. To my knowledge, there's no go-to
> place for that information. It might be part of the <title> or an <h1>, but
> both of those elements relate more to the page than the larger site.
>
> To me it'd make sense to define such an element as a companion to <title>.
> Many authors currently lump the website name and the page title together in
> an arbitrary format inside <title>. Having a separate element for the website
> name would serve to discourage that, and would let user agents present the
> two pieces of information in a consistent and predictable way.
>
> Regards,
> Pontus
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 12:46 Delfi Ramirez <del...@segonquart.net> wrote:
>
>> <logo> sounds nice to me.
>>
>> As far as we move onto standarized browsers and mobile devices as the
>> way we connect to the web, the proposed <logo> could be equal to the
>> reference or representation shown in _svg=icon _or_ link-rel="ico"_
>>
>> Just thinking.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Delfi Ramirez
>>
>> My digital signature [1]
>>
>> +34 633 589231
>> del...@segonquart.net [2]
>>
>> twitter: delfinramirez
>>
>> IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3]
>>
>> http://segonquart.net [1] [4]
>>
>> http://delfiramirez.info [2]
>> [5]
>>
>> On 2015-06-30 11:48, Martin Janecke wrote:
>>
>>> On 30.06.15 03:18, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> On 6/29/15, Barry Smith <bearzt...@live.com> wrote: From: "Garrett Smith"
>>> <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> Hey Garrett, My apologizes for not replying until
>>> now. When I posted my reply to the "Site-Wide Heading Element" thread, you
>>> were right and I should have posted a more complete example. Here is what I
>>> should have given as an example: <header id="banner"> <script
>>> src="scripts/header.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <noscript> <div
>>> class="styledText"> <div class="letterM">M</div> <div class="word">y</div>
>>> </div> <div class="styledText"> <div class="letterW">W</div> <div
>>> class="word">eb</div> </div> <div class="styledText"> <div
>>> class="letterS">S</div> <div class="word">ite</div> </div> </noscript>
>>> </header> Using the <div> element for purely stylistic purposes. Placing
>>> them within the <noscript> element displays the exact same header as is in
>>> the embedded <script> element, but without the additional animation used in
>>> the javascript file. I would use an H1 with text-transfo
rm
>> :
>> capitalize and avoid using divs and javascript.
>>
>> I agree with avoiding JavaScript. I am not sure about text-transform,
>> because I don't know which styling the author had in mind. He may want
>> to color every word's first letter differently.
>>
>> <div> is actually a neutral "block" element. The neutral "inline"
>> element <span> would seem like the better choice to wrap letters or
>> single words in the example. But you could wrap the whole line into one
>> <div>.
>>
>> I would not use <h1> because "My Website" is neither a heading for the
>> content of the page (unless maybe on the front page or a sitemap) nor
>> for a section of the page. It could be intended as a title for the whole
>> website, i.e. all its pages together, or as some kind of logo or
>> branding. I don't think we have a dedicated element for either of these
>> interpretations.
>>
>> Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning "title
>> for the entirety of pages of a website". How would this be interpreted,
>> if such an element is used with different content on different pages of
>> the same website? I think such an element would cause inconsistencies
>> all the time. It isn't a good idea.
>>
>> Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning "logo,
>> branding". What would its benefits be compared to <div>? And would
>> authors still want to use it if add-blockers get a little more
>> aggressive and offer the option to block logos?
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc [3]
>> [2] mail:%20del...@segonquart.net
>> [3] skype:segonquart
>> [4] http://segonquart.net [1]
>> [5] http://delfiramirez.info [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://segonquart.net
[2] http://delfiramirez.info
[3] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc
[4] mail:%20del...@segonquart.net
[5] skype:segonquart
