W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Splitting up the spec

From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:43:37 -0500
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560811240743g499c6e4foe19757205004dfba@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2008, at 06:49, Jim Jewett wrote:

>>>> But <h1> and <div> won't need the processing
>>>> spec.

>>> So where would you put the requirements currently
>>> in the " Creating an outline" section?

>> In the processing spec.  I don't need to know that to
>> create a conforming document.

> How do you know what an <h1> *means* in terms
> of its level without running the outline creation
> algorithm?

(<h1>  previously meant a top-level header.  It created an implicit
section break.)

Now h1 means a header at the level of the current enclosing sectioning
tag.  It still creates an implicit subsection.

The suggestion to not skip levels (replaced by the suggestion of
always using h1) is good informative advice, but not needed to
understand the meaning of the element.

All the information about the relationship to other h* elements, and
null sections, etc... isn't really needed to define the vocabulary.
It is needed for the DOM.  It is needed to generate identical outlines
(a processing task) in some corner cases.  But it isn't needed to
define a properly used h1.

[The extra information on h1 in particular is indeed something that
could *probably* just be handled by a subset view.  I don't believe
that is the best solution, but agree that if it proves inadequate, h1
isn't likely to be where the problem arises.]

Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 15:44:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:39 UTC