[whatwg] Re: <section> and headings and other threads
dolphinling
dolphinling at myrealbox.com
Thu Apr 7 15:32:52 PDT 2005
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, dolphinling wrote:
>
>><section>
>> <h1>1st level header</h1>
>> <p>content</p>
>> <!-- section -->
>> <!-- section -->
>> <h3>3rd level header</h3>
>> <p>content</p>
>> <!-- /section -->
>> <!-- /section -->
>></section>
>
>
> Disagreed; the <h3> simply gets treated as an <h2> in this case, IMHO. I
> don't see the advantage of having deeper sections here.
Suppose you have an outline like this:
Section
|
+--A
| |
| +--B
| | |
| | +--C
| | |
| | +--D
| |
| +--E
| |
| +--F
| |
| +--G
|
+--H
|
+-----I
|
+-----J
...where I and J are the same level as C, D, F, and G. If there's no way
to skip a heading level, then there's no way to convey the fact that
they're of the same importance.
One real-world example of this that I know of is
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/reference/html/, take a look at
chapter 3. Another example would be in taxonomy, where there are lots
and lots of sub- and supercategories, but all species should obviously
be the same heading level.
In the absence of sub/superheadings (which IMO would be a much better
solution, but possibly wouldn't be able to be backwards-compatible (or
maybe they would, I haven't thought about it quite enough...)) there
needs to be some way to skip levels.
--
dolphinling
<http://dolphinling.net/>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list