[whatwg] article/section/details naming/definition problems
jonas at sicking.cc
Tue Sep 15 18:15:14 PDT 2009
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Jeremy Keith wrote:
>> Henri wrote:
>> > http://adactio.com/journal/1607/
>> Ah, you beat me to it. I was just about to write an email to the list,
>> honestly. ;-)
>> So anyway, the upshot of my somewhat unscientific survey conducted at a
>> workshop a couple of weeks ago is that there is great confusion between the
>> <section> and <article> elements.
> I've tweaked their definitions (as well as a few others) to take this data
> into account.
> Thanks for this research, by the way, it's very useful.
>> In that blog post, I point out that <section> and <article> were once more
>> divergent but have converged over time (since the @cite and @pubdate
>> attributes were dropped from <article>).
>> I've also seen a lot of confusion from authors wondering when to use <section>
>> and when to use <article>. Bruce wrote an article on HTML5 doctor recently to
>> address this:
>> Probably the best tutorial I've seen on this issue is from Ted:
>> ...but even so, the confusion remains. The very fact that tutorials are
>> required for what should be intuitive structural elements is worrying — I
>> don't see the same issues around <nav>, <header> or <footer> (now that the
>> content model has been changed) ...although there is continuing confusion
>> around <aside>.
> I'd like to rename <article>, if someone can come up with a better word
> that means "blog post, blog comment, forum post, or widget". I do think
> there is an important difference between a subpart of a page that is
> a potential candidate for syndication, and a subsection of a page that
> only makes sense with the rest of the page.
How about <section type=article> or <section article="">?
Or can we leave it to a predefined microformat (as much as I'm not a
fan of those)
More information about the whatwg