[whatwg] WA1 - The Section Header Problem
jg307 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Nov 17 09:04:01 PST 2004
Matthew Raymond wrote:
> I'm not really going to fight you on the whole keeping <h1>-<h6>
> thing, since HTML really only specifies them as being used for header
> information and having different levels of importance.
> I still feel that, structurally speaking, there should be a
> <section> element for every section and subsection, even for sections
> that are both leaves and immediate siblings. Therefore, I'm amending
> my previous position with the following:
> 1) Nested headers are ignored. Therefore, this markup...
> ...Is the same as...
> 2) <h1>-<h6> have the same semantic value as in HTML 4.01, but are
> additionally defined as not having any semantic meaning related to
> document _structure_.
What do you mean? How would:
work as an outline? Would it be:
or something else? Do you just mean that inside <section> <h1> through
<h6> are at the same place in an outline i.e. an outliner does not
or do you mean something else? If you do mean that, it seems like a
reasonable position to me (since the HTML 4 heading model is widely
abused and poorly specified). In the absence of a <section> ancestor of
a heading, we have to fall back on <h1> being higher level than <h2>
which is higher level than <h3>, and so on, though.
> I'd also like to see an optional attribute for <section> called
> |level|, which would indicate the level of importance for all the
> child <h> elements in the <section>. The idea would be that...
Is there a reason for this? Imean what does the new attribute give that
is a) useful and b) not already possible with <hn> + <section>.
I remain unconvined that <h> is at-all compatible with the goal of
backward-compatibility or even particularly useful given that we have to
retain <h1> through <h6> so little conceptual simplifcation of the
language is obtained though <h>.
More information about the whatwg