Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

In a message dated 26/09/2002 17:12:07 GMT Daylight Time, ann@webgeek.com 
writes:


> XHTML 2.0 retains much of the familiar because that familiar is practical, 
> useful, and comfortable. There is no need to reinvent paragraphs, bulleted 
> lists, and other simple document structures. 

Ann,

Not even if the paragraphs are structurally unlinked to any assumed header?

I will use hypothetical elements. Isn't it better to have

<header>Header blah.
<paragraph>Blah, blah
</paragraph>
<!-- Add more paragraphs to taste -->
</header>

or

<topic>
<header>Header blah.</header>
<paragraph>Blah, blah
</paragraph>
<!-- Add more paragraphs to taste -->
</header>
</topic>

than the current lack of structure with 

<h1>Header blah</h1>
<p>More blah in smaller type</p>?

There is nothing structurally in XHTML to associate the h1 element with its 
(probably) associated p element.

Surely that is one of the structural defects of HTML that should at least be 
looked at in XHTML 2.0?

Andrew Watt