W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Bottom-up Sections

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 12:27:04 +0300
Message-ID: <3F336CE8.70000@cc.jyu.fi>
To: www-html@w3.org
CC: Stefan Ram <ram@ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE>

Stefan Ram / 2003-08-08 05:26:
>   Bottom-up Sections
>     Abstract: The definition elements dt and dd should be replaced
>     by a more general "bottom-up section" element with a "title" and
>     a "contents".
>   In several types of texts certain "small sections" appear, which
>   do not fit into the XHTML 2 section scheme. For example, in articles,
>   sometimes there are "boxes" treating certain topics or, in mathematics
>   texts, there are labeled theorems or proofs.
>   Such a proof can not be easily implemented using the XHTML 2 section
>   element, because its "level" then would depend on the level of the
>   containing section, while it should always be the same "low" level -
>   independent of whether it is part of a section or a chapter.

I think we need to understand the problem better before trying to 
decide the right answer. Do you really think that those "boxes" 
aren't *logically* part of containing section. Traditional rendering 
might not hint that the "box" is really a sub section, but is that 
really the intent? Or are those "boxes" logically more analogous to 
diagrams and pictures or something else which is logically out of 
flow? After saying that, if you're repeating work already done by 
somebody else, what's the problem with marking up the proof as 
blockquote and styling it to look like proofs traditionally look in 
such articles?

Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 05:27:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:04 UTC