This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
hello Sections are a tree-structure that need an exception for CSS styling <h1>Site Title</h1> <article> <h1>Article XXX Title</h1> <section> <h1>Site Sidebar</h1> ... </section> <p>Article XXX text</p> <p>Article XXX text</p> <p>Article XXX text</p> </article> If I write a structure like this, because these are the "CSS' needs" to design my layout, I will obtain an horribly wrong outline, so why don't introduce some tag to de-section something from its context? this snippet: <h1>Site Title</h1> <article> <h1>Article XXX Title</h1> <outside> <section> <h1>Site Sidebar</h1> ... </section> </outside> <p>Article XXX text</p> <p>Article XXX text</p> <p>Article XXX text</p> </article> should be equivalent to: <h1>Site Title</h1> <article> <h1>Article XXX Title</h1> <p>Article XXX text</p> <p>Article XXX text</p> <p>Article XXX text</p> </article> <section> <h1>Site Sidebar</h1> ... </section> every <outside> should mean "up one level" I hope that this can be discussed thank you!
This isn't an HTML problem; it's either a problem with your code (you can probably get the same layout with better structure) or a problem with CSS (if you can't get the right layout with the correct structure, CSS may need to be expanded to fit your needs). Regardless, your suggested markup is badly organized and we shouldn't encourage it.
(In reply to comment #1) > This isn't an HTML problem; it's either a problem with your code (you can > probably get the same layout with better structure) or a problem with CSS (if > you can't get the right layout with the correct structure, CSS may need to be > expanded to fit your needs). > > Regardless, your suggested markup is badly organized and we shouldn't encourage > it. I'm not a random html/css coder, I know what I'm asking at the moment css is not strong enough to make content indpendent from presentation, one day maybe (with some model different from "float", flexbox for instance) but today, a good html structure is sometimes needed to style what you want. html5, differently from xhtml 2 should allow and standardize real practices and common needs surely I can change my layout to match the html5 outline, but html5 should not limit other so much related technologies
I'm a webdev too. I know the limitations of current CSS layout. That doesn't mean you should sacrifice good content organization. It also doesn't mean there's not another way to do it (there usually is). However, CSS is already developing the tools you need. Flexbox Layout (an older version is available in most browsers, and the newer version is currently being developed) and Grid Layout (should be experimentally available in IE10, and is being worked on in other browsers) *do* let you do document-order-independent layout. Better to wait for those to come in and make your life infinitely easier than try and bless your current hacks that are bad for both you and your users.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: If there's a limitation in CSS, we should fix it by fixing CSS, not by adding a feature to HTML.
ok. and what about this issue: the document is the main section, ok? the document talks about "cars motorsport" and I want to insert some banners not related at all with "cars motorsport", for instance "greenpeace" with my idea there will be: <body> <h1>Good news everyone: the Ferrari F1 is back at the top of the podium!</h1> <p>some text some text some text some text some text some text </p> <outside> <h1>Greenpeace sponsor</h1> <p>We hate cars! WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!</p> </outside> </body> <aside> is a standalone, but related prose <outside> is a standalone, not related prose
No, that use-case is precisely what <aside> is meant for.
(In reply to comment #6) > No, that use-case is precisely what <aside> is meant for. quoting the spec: >The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of content that is tangentially related >to the content around the aside element, and which could be considered separate from that content. >Such sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography. it is not tangentially related, it is a totally different context.
(In reply to comment #7) > it is not tangentially related, it is a totally different context. I assure you that <aside> is meant for this use-case. During the development of the element, it was going to be named <sidebar> precisely because it was to be used for website sidebars, which contain mostly-unrelated information.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > it is not tangentially related, it is a totally different context. > > I assure you that <aside> is meant for this use-case. During the development > of the element, it was going to be named <sidebar> precisely because it was to > be used for website sidebars, which contain mostly-unrelated information. Hi, I've read the spec dozens of times, I think that something is not clear, or something is missing. you say that aside is meant for this use-case, but why it isn't a sectioning root? in my use case it should be
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > it is not tangentially related, it is a totally different context. > > > > I assure you that <aside> is meant for this use-case. During the development > > of the element, it was going to be named <sidebar> precisely because it was to > > be used for website sidebars, which contain mostly-unrelated information. > > Hi, I've read the spec dozens of times, I think that something is not clear, or > something is missing. You haven't read it enough. From the spec: "The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other content that is considered separate from the main content of the page." The second item in the list, advertising, is exactly what you're asking about in your examples. > you say that aside is meant for this use-case, but why it isn't a sectioning > root? > > in my use case it should be Again, you haven't read the spec enough. <aside> is listed as "sectioning content", which means that it's a sectioning root (follow the link to the definition to see that).
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: In your example, the banner about greenpeace is tangentially related to the motorsport topic, if only by the fact that the author wants to talk about both of them. For a relevant example, look at the 3rd example in the <aside> section.