- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:50:02 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: Seth Call <sethcall@gmail.com>, public-html-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:26:31 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Seth Call wrote: > > > > > > I believe there may be an omission to a particular rule in the > > > 'Creating an outline' section: > > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/#outlines > > > > > > Specifically, from the rule 'When exiting a sectioning root element, > > > if the stack is not empty' quoted at the bottom of this email, I > > > believe there should be a 6th step: > > > > > > '6. Append the outline of the sectioning content element being > > > exited to the current section. (This does not change which section is > > > the last section in the outline.)' > > > > > > In addition, I think the 3rd step should be changed to: > > > > > > '3. Finding the deepest child: If current section has no child > > > sections, jump to step 6' > > > > No, the sectioning roots don't append their outlines to their "parent" > > outlines. This is intentional -- consider a table with multiple cells, > > each with sections. Those sections aren't part of the document that > > the table is part of -- but the cells still have outlines. > > Such tables are almost certainly for layout, and it would be a > disservice to users of AT to hide sections in layout tables from the > document outline. Nothing prevents the UA from using the outlines; it's just not automatic. As far as I can tell, that's the right balance. Similarly, outlines of blockquoted material or in <figure>s aren't included in the <body> outline. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 23:50:38 UTC