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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC