21554 2013-04-02 18:04:00 +0000 make hgroup non-conforming (as far as document conformance) 2013-04-22 22:38:37 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX P2 normal Unsorted 1 mike ian ian mike contributor oldest_to_newest 85433 0 mike 2013-04-02 18:04:00 +0000 I think it makes sense to consider dropping hgroup from the spec as a conforming element, while keeping the UA requirements for processing it as-is (e.g., any parts of the parsing algorithm, and anything in the default UA stylesheet). Despite having been in the spec for quite a while now, usage of hgroup does not really seem to have caught on widely in the Web-authoring community, and as far as I know, no browsers actually fully implement support for hgroup per spec. Also, the HTML WG recently made a decision to drop hgroup as conforming from the HTML CR spec -- though no decision has been made to drop it from the LS=like W3C HTML "Nightly" spec. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Apr/0003.html 86005 1 ian 2013-04-11 22:58:34 +0000 http://freesvgfiles.com/category/animals/ http://dejavutheblog.com/2012/03/29/wild-girl/ http://asetdelhi.com/content/decibel/board-members http://es.glee.wikia.com/wiki/Usuario:Zeebts http://ameblo.jp/angelstar-nefertari/entry-11407344144.html 86185 2 ian 2013-04-14 20:23:34 +0000 Based on some internal data (sample size ~10 billion pages), it looks like the ratio of pages that contain <aside> to pages that contain <hgroup> is about 4:1. Which seems about right. It's certainly plenty enough pages to keep around, especially if we're not changing the UA requirements. It's more pages than use obscure things like <samp>. For things where the browsers support the feature anyway, the barrier to keeping the element in the language as conforming is somewhat lower, since the gain of removing it is so low. 86504 3 ian 2013-04-22 22:38:37 +0000 WONTFIX per comment 2.