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 20:50:15 -0400
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560909221750w23562dd2i147ab9a743310718@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am absolutely certain that you will see <h> rampantly misused to replace <h*>.
>> Is this a problem?
>
> Given the current spec text (where <h> is not a heading), yes.  Given
> appropriate changes, no, but there's already been a decision not to
> use <h> for headings, so the changes would have to fight against the
> existing reasoning against this.

What was that reasoning?  All I remember was that it wasn't worth
inventing a new (one-character) element when h1-h6 couldn't be
deprecated anyhow.

But that doesn't mean h would be a problem if it existed for other
reasons -- such as "header to nearest enclosing block element -- shows
up in the outline only if not inside a sectioning root"

-jJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 00:51:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT