W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2005

Re: [XHTML2] How are UAs to interpret <h> and <hx> elements?

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:55:52 +0200
Message-ID: <42AB33B8.7030506@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Is it really a good idea to mandate one heading per section?  Consider 
> the following example:
>
> <body>
>   <h>Heading 1</h>
>   ...
>
>   <h>Heading 2</h>
>   ...
> </body>
>
> The only valid alternative would be to include an additional section 
> element around each section, leaving no heading as a direct child of 
> body.  eg.
>
> <body>
>   <section>
>     <h>Heading 1</h>
>     ...
>   </section>
>   <section>
>     <h>Heading 2</h>
>     ...
>   </section>
> </body>

That is an interesting case which I have so far avoided by just not 
using more than one level-1 heading in a document. But obviously this 
doesn’t do. In the second case, all headings would be second-level 
headings from both a semantics as a styling point of view, so that 
doesn’t really work.

I see three solutions:
1. just let there be multiple h elements in a section for the body case 
(but recommend separate sections for the rest),
2. require h elements to be nested in a section and to have only one h 
element per section,
3. or, taking it a little further, replace body entirely by section, or 
something like that. Which is better than allowing two body elements to 
be present, because for one that doesn’t make sense, a document has only 
one body and the separate sections don’t belong to entirely separate 
‘bodies’ of the document, and secondly you want a section to be called a 
section and not anything else (for different kinds of sections, we have 
@role after all).


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2005 18:55:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:03 UTC