- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:56:51 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11737 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ian@hixie.ch --- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2011-02-14 22:56:50 UTC --- > * It solves the main problem of the current content model - that some headings > in a hgroup no longer have h1-h6 semantics (except that they do, in legacy UAs) > - this is hard to grasp and hard to "calculate" the effects of. I don't understand this point. Can you elaborate? > * It is easier to style with CSS. It doesn't require the same detailed view of > the markup structure as the current content model does. The hgroup styling is hardly burdensome: hgroup > h1 { ... } hgroup > h2 { ... } The proposal above doesn't really improve it, either — I don't think this is any more intuitive: hgroup > h1 { ... } sh { ... } > * It is semantically less confusing, as hgroup with this content model only > contains a single hx. I don't understand why having multiple levels of headings is semantically confusing. It seems pretty semantically clear to me. > * It has better semantical fallback: Both a legacy UA and a HTML5 UA would > create the same outline. In addition, a HTML5 user agent would EITHER see the > whole thing as a heading (if we define it like that) OR it would see the hgroup > as solely a container for grouping <sh> together with <hx>. Not sure what practical effects this would have. What concrete software or users would be affected by this "semantical fallback"? > * It it makes the outline algorithm easier to understand and implement. At the > same time, the current outline - as described in books and implemented here and > there - would continue to work, except when the highest rank heading follows > after lower rank heading(s). The outline algorithm's complexity is not due to <hgroup>. I don't think this proposal materially affects the complexity of the algorithm. Indeed <hgroup> is not explicitly mentioned in the outline algorithm currently at all. > * It seems harder to use incorrectly. The only obvious mistake that one could > make would be to use <sh> outside a <hgroup>, which would be relatively > harmless (semantics of <div>). I don't understand why that is harder than misusing <hgroup>. What failure scenarios with <hgroup> are you expecting to commonly see? Problems with this proposal: * It doesn't degrade gracefully in legacy UAs. * It doesn't pave existing cowpaths (which use <h1>/<h2> — see e.g. the HTML4 spec). * It only supports one level of subheading. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 22:56:53 UTC