W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2004

[whatwg] WA1 - The Section Header Problem

From: Petrazickis <petrazi@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:53:10 -0500
Message-ID: <41A35CE6.7080801@sympatico.ca>
Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2004, at 16:43, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>
>>    Of course, if you want the headers to derive their levels of 
>> importance from parent markup, you'd have to convert the <hn> 
>> elements into <h> and <section> elements, because <hn> elements don't 
>> support it. And in a <section>-less world, you'd have that problem 
>> anyway unless you selected the level of the header ahead of time to 
>> compensate, which would also solve the problem in the above example 
>> as well.
>
>
> In the h1...h6 world the inclusion template directive could specify 
> how many levels the headings of the included content need to be 
> shifted down.
>
> (A DOM-based implementation, when shifting h1 down by one, would 
> create a h2 node, move the attributes and children of the h1 node to 
> the h2 node and then replace the h1 node with the h2 node.)

So...

<h1>Whee</h1>
<section>
    <h1>Whoo</h1>
    <section>
        <h1>Whaa</h1>
        <section>
        </section>
        <h1>Whuu</h1>
        <section>
        </section>
    </section>
</section>

Does that translate into
+ Whee
  + Whoo
    + Whaa
    + Whuu

or into
+ Whee
+ Whoo
+ Whaa
+ Whuu

I think the first tree makes the most sense. Since I am not aware of any 
actual HTML4 outliners, suggesting the former in the spec does not seem 
unreasonable.

Isn't the main objection to the W3C process and standards such as XHTML2 
and SVG that they are ignoring actual uses of technology in favour of 
hypothetical uses? Aren't such outliners hypothetical uses of HTML?
--
Leons Petrazickis
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 07:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC