W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: itemheader names <h>

From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:08:55 -0400
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560909221708w6cc1f52cu2e43fd79390219f9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But as long as we're thinking generic instead of figure-specific,
>>> maybe the answer is a simple <h>.  Because of h1-h6, the meaning
>>> should be more obvious than it is with most short tags; because of the
>>> rejection of <h> to replace h1-h6, it is still available.

>> I am absolutely certain that you will see <h> rampantly misused to replace <h*>.

> That was one of my first thoughts too.  It sounds like a really bad
> idea to use it to mean anything other than <h[1-6]>, since that's what
> I'd assume it means.  Especially given the "use h1 everywhere" idea
> that HTML5 promotes.

Is this a problem?

In other words, are there places that meet all three of the following:
(a)  They need a header of some sort
(b)  This header is "small enough" that it should NOT show up in the outline.
(c)  They can also contain "regular" headers that *should* show up in
the outline.

Offhand, the closest I could come to a problem location is figuring
out whether the <h> of a figure should show up or not.  Even there, I
don't see that as varying within a single page, and I don't see it as
being all that horrible if people who use the wrong element get one
too many (or one too few) levels of detail in the Table Of Contents.

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 00:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC