[whatwg] article: do we really need this?
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Wed Mar 7 18:17:23 PST 2007
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Not much. <section class="article"> is perfectly fine. My mind just
> happened to be in another spec at the moment where there were roles and
> not classes, so I happened to mention role where I [probably] should have
> said class.
I don't really care for predefined classes. Classes strike me as
being an extension mechanism to HTML, so it makes little sense to me to
have their custom semantics enshrined in a specification.
> It's not really a question of whether article makes sense. The question
> is whether it makes *enough* sense. There are arguments for it, but
> they're very weak. I do not see a community crying out for this.
Well, I for one have use <div class="content"> for essentially the
same thing all the time, so it'd be nice to have for me at least.
> I don't
> think it's going to help anybody all that much, and I'm afraid it's
> going to end up like address: a poorly understood, rarely used element
> that's misused more often than it's used properly.
I can think of only one way it might be abused:
| In the Time Magazine article <article>It is the Bunny!</article>...
However, considering how little other inline elements of that kind
are used, I doubt this will be a problem.
> I suspect I could ask the same question of a few other elements as well.
> time and meter come to mind. They at least don't have any obvious
> equivalents already in the spec, and are obvious enough they perhaps
> won't be frequently misused; but do authors actually need these? Will
> they use them?
I think <time> has a good use case. (Full Disclosure: <time> is based
on similar earlier concepts I developed.) Meter has use cases, but I
don't know how strong they are. I think <article> has at least as strong
a use case as <address>, but I agree that's not saying much.
More information about the whatwg