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

Re: H1

From: Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:15:46 +0000
Message-ID: <3E4AC792.B6AC495E@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design <nigel@miswebdesign.com>
CC: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, www-html@w3.org



Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design wrote:
> 
> But if they're unrelated shouldn't they be on separate pages in theory?

If they're long, then undoubtedly "yes"; but if they're very
short, and a user who is interested in one could reasonably
be expected to be interested in the (or an-) other, then
I would argue that they can reasonably be co-located.

The alternative is to /require/ the author to identify and
name the unifying theme, no matter how tenuous it might be.

** Phil.
--------
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi [mailto:ssyreeni@cc.helsinki.fi]On Behalf
> > Of Sampo Syreeni
> > Sent: 12 February 2003 22:04
> > To: Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design
> > Cc: Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP]; www-html@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: H1
> >
> >
> > On 2003-02-12, Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design uttered to Philip TAYLOR...:
> >
> > >In that case should it not be given a single <h1> with <h2>s for the 2
> > >sections?
> >
> > No. If you have two topics of equal importance without a common unifying
> > one, you'd label them both and concatenate. If both of the topics are at
> > the highest heading level of a page, you'd end up with two parallel H1's.
> > --
> > Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111
> > student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
> > openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 17:15:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT