waw325 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 16:54:49 PST 2009
I had to read it several times to get it as well.
"...regardless of what implied sections other headings may have created."
That is the part that answers the questions I believe. Yes, any
element that starts an explicit section is *not* a subsection of
nearest implicit sections. Also, any element that create an explicit
section, ends any implicit sections on it's same level.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Elizabeth Castro <lcastro at cookwood.com> wrote:
> In 4.4.11, it says
> Sectioning content elements are always considered subsections of their
> nearest ancestor element of sectioning content, regardless of what implied
> sections other headings may have created.
> Does that line mean that a section element is *not* a subsection of the
> nearest implied section?
> So, if there is no other explicit sectioning content, as in the example
> given, then what would the section element be a subsection of?
> I don't get why Thud ends up on an equal level as Quux and Bar. It seems
> like as a section under h2 it should be a subsection of that Quux h2, just
> as the implied Bar section is a subsection of the implied Foo section.
More information about the whatwg