[whatwg] Re: <section> and headings and other threads
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Apr 7 16:11:32 PDT 2005
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, dolphinling wrote:
> Suppose you have an outline like this:
> +--A [...]
> | |
> | +--E
> | |
> | +--F
> | |
> | +--G
> ...where I and J are the same level as C, D, F, and G.
Same level in what sense?
> 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.
Well, there is one way: nesting <section>s.
> 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.
I don't think it's "obvious". Indeed I don't think it's true -- while I
could see an argument for consistent styling of the species, I don't
consider them to be the same level. In the outline above, I consider I and
J to be different levels from F and G.
> 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.
There are subheadings in HTML5. See the <header> element.
And there is a way to skip levels; the <section> element.
Are those solutions satisfactory, or do you still want the rank of
<h1>-<h6> to imply missing sections?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg