- From: Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:15:46 +0000
- 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 UTC