[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] [patch][ox-html] Support for level based containers

From: Rasmus
Subject: Re: [O] [patch][ox-html] Support for level based containers
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:41:07 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)


Rick Frankel <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2014-03-17 23:31, Rasmus wrote:
>> It's a variable that you can set in your project or in your Org file
>> or in your init file.  I don't see why div × 3 is better than section
>> article div or something else conditional on two variables being
>> explicitly set to get fancy HTML5. . .  In any case, I don't have
>> strong—if any—preferences on this.
> Because using these tags is assigning semantic meaning which may or
> may not be valid for the current document. Based on the spec, your use
> of =section= seems ok (but could also be used for the other levels),
> but your use of =article= is probably wrong in most cases. From
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/sections.html#the-article-element:
> The article element represents a complete, or self-contained,
> composition in a document, page, application, or site and that is,
> in principle, independently distributable or reusable, e.g. in
> syndication. This could be a forum post, a magazine or newspaper
> article, a blog entry, a user-submitted comment, an interactive
> widget or gadget, or any other independent item of content.

OK.  Thanks for your through clarification.  

> As to the =section= element, the from the above doc:
> The section element represents a generic section of a document or
> application. A section, in this context, is a thematic grouping of
> content. The theme of each section should be identified, typically
> by including a heading (h1-h6 element) as a child of the section
> element.

This happens with the patch (as is does with divs ATM).

> and
> A general rule is that the section element is appropriate only if
> the element's contents would be listed explicitly in the
> document's outline.
> So, using this definition, in html5, the wrappers should be =sections=
> to the same level as the toc heading level specified for the document,
> and =divs= after.[1]

So you want it to be section until h:N?  That should be easy.

>> org-html-text-markup-alist is nice.  What do you want to see in
>> addition to the current structure (in patch v2)?
>> Somehow I never saw the original thread, only the email cc'ing me
>> directly. I went to gmane to find the patch, and obviously grabbed the
>> wrong one.
>> Could you please send me the (new) patch so that i can review it?
>> Here's the Gmane link.  I believe it's different than what you
>> reviewed before, but perhaps I'm wrong. . .
> No, i got the wrong patch from gmane. This one looks better modulo:
> 1. The default should stay the same as it is now -- the string "div"

As you prefer.

> 2. Minor typo, but "backward comparability" should be "backwards
> compatibility".


> But, after reviewing the spec (see above vis. =section= and
> =article=), i would submit that a better patch would be to
> implement [1] above -- remove the defcustom (i only added to support
> using a different default wrapper element in html5), and use =section=
> and =div= based on toc level when html5-fancy is true. As far as i can
> tell from the spec, =article= would almost never be correct for the
> average org doc. Here's a relevant quote from the spec:

OK.  That certainly makes it easier.  But should it not then be a cons
or an alist specifying which container to use when the headline level
is above or below h:N and deepening on whether html5-fancy is used?

> Authors are encouraged to use the article element instead of the
> section element when it would make sense to syndicate the contents
> of the element.

So blogs, technical docs and similar?  I can see people using Org such
things?  Or do W3-people thinkg of something different when they say
it is "syndicatable"

> I think the best way to implement this would be letting the user
> specify it with the =HTML_CONTAINER= property already implemented. As
> this seems very much in keeping with the spec, i will implement this
> change when i have some time in the next couple of weeks if i don't
> hear any strong arguments against.

I can change my patch to this behavior if you want.  Though I think
it's pretty strong to hardcode values, as one would might have reasons
to change it in say an ox-publish project.

> As an aside, the complex semantics of the new html5 tags is why we
> have been slow in implementing them in ox-html. =div= is by
> definition a non-semantic tag meant to be used for grouping and
> styling, but the new tags have very specific meanings associated with
> them and their mis-use is worse than their non-use.

Good point.

Thanks again Rick.


Governments should be afraid of their people

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]