Re: changed advice on use of h1 headings in document outline.

Hi Heydon,

whether to use a single or multiple <h1>'s in a doc is the stuff of endless
debate.

What I would suggest is markup the heading structure as if the sections
weren't there (as far as implementations go currently they have no effect
on the document outline for the majority of consumers of the heading
semantics), but place them (in the sectioning elements) in such a way that
they make sense if the outline algorithm did have an effect (for future
possible compatibility)

As the primary practical concern is that the outline produced through the
use of headings alone is logical right?

>your advise prohibits me from using <h1>

note it's not my advice, the advice in that respect was not changed. use of
multiple h1's is not prohibited it is just no longer strongly encouraged.

*
>*With this sort of ambivalence in mind, I think the specification should
afford more flexibility. At the very least, I think the "strong" adjective
is a bit
>overzealous.

If others chime in to with reasoning to support this change and we achieve
rough consensus on it, then the change can be made by anyone in the editors
team..


Useful resource on marking up headings:

HTML5 document outline revisited
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/201104/html5_document_outline_revisited/

regards
SteveF


On 14 February 2013 16:04, Heydon Pickering <heydon@heydonworks.com> wrote:

> Hey Steve,
>
> I am not a huge fan of <h1> everywhere, but perhaps you could answer this
> question:
>
> Am I supposed to use <h1>s to markup up headings that introduce
> "important" content regions, or simply _outermost_ content regions?
>
> For instance...
>
> If the "most important" part of my page (the part I made the page for) is
> in an <article> nested within my <body>, then shouldn't its heading be an
> <h1>?
> However, since the <article> is a subsection of <body>, your advise
> prohibits me from using <h1>. I should use an <h2>. Does this imply that
> the article is
> of less importance than the body's <h1> (possibly a logo or other
> tautology) and, if so, isn't this problematic?
>
> With this sort of ambivalence in mind, I think the specification should
> afford more flexibility. At the very least, I think the "strong" adjective
> is a bit
> overzealous.
>
> Cheers for now - Heydon.
>
>
>

<http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>

Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 11:54:41 UTC