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

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2

From: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:42:31 -0600
Message-ID: <115918950971.20030122014231@cda.mrs.umn.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org

fantasai wrote on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 2:25:36 PM:

> Kelvin Chung wrote:

>> 6. With <section> and <h>, is there any point in keeping <h1> to
>> <h6>?

> I don't see a strong reason to take <h1-6> out, and so IMO it should
> be preserved for backwards-compatability.

XHTML 2.0 isn't supposed to be backwards compatible. I think that's a
good argument for keeping h1-h6 in XHTML 1.2 (or whatever it will be
called).

> It may also be useful for unstructured texts that have headings but
> no definite sections.

I don't get this. Do you mean using h1-h6 for presentation? An example
would be very helpful. I think the following:

    <h1></h1>
    <p></p>
    <h2></h2>
    <p></p>
    <h2></h2>
    <p></p>
    
Could be rewritten like so, without losing anything:

    <h></h>
    <p></p>
    <section>
    <h></h>
    <p></p>
    </section>
    <section>
    <h></h>
    <p></p>
    </section>

Do you think anything is being lost in the transformation?

If a document has multiple levels of headings, either those headings
are purely stylistic or they are implying sections. If there are truly
no sections, I think there will be no structured headings (or one
level of headings, which <h> can handle fine).

I've always believed <section> and <h> are strictly superior to
numbered headings (especially since the number of sections/headings is
unlimited). I would be surprised if there was an example showing
otherwise.

-- 
John
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 02:42:16 GMT

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