W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: My comments on the XHTML 2 draft.

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:38:41 +0200
To: Toby Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <rjvdluoeoejfsiiqihnbtgbmc2n87dg3jc@4ax.com>

* Toby Inkster wrote:
>I think the new <h> element should have a "level" attribute which can
>be used as such:
>
><h level="1"> is a synonym for <h1>
>...
><h level="6"> is a synonym for <h6>
><h level="7"> is new
>...
>
>and the numbering is potentially unlimited. Then <h1> to <h6> could be
>deprecated, which I assume is the eventual aim. (I hope this is the aim
>anyway, because the <h> and <section> method is a nicer paradigm IMHO.)
>Anyhow, by giving <h> a level attribute, the <hX> elements could be
>deprecated straight away, instead of waiting until the next revision of
>XHTML.

If you use <section> a 'level' attribute on <h> is redundant, the level
is determined from context. I don't see why this attribute renders h1-h6
superfluous?

>Another idea for an element I shall call <Title> (note: upper case T,
>because obviously there is already a <title> element) Anyway, it could
>be used to mark up the titles of books, software packages, films and songs.
>Right now, <span> classes have to be used instead.

Why do you consider this element to be necessary?
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 21:38:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT