- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:34:36 +0300
- To: porneL <pornel@pornel.net>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
2013-06-09 16:54, porneL wrote: > On 8 June 2013 17:04:01 "Jukka K. Korpela" > <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote: >> 2013-06-08 16:21, Steve Faulkner wrote: > >> If the problem being solved is authors' question "which markup should >> I use for...", then I would say that such a problem needs no solution >> in the form of a new markup element. People have solved such problems >> over 20 years, with whatever HTML elements are available. There is no >> need for unification, partly because there is no objectively >> definable, reasonably exact definition for the structure that the new >> elements are supposed to indicate. > > Definitely authors want some markup for subheadings, which is why > h1+h2 markup pattern emerged that hgroup t[ri]ed to fix. It was similarly a wrong move. Just because some patterns emerge doesn't mean that markup rules need to be changed. On the contrary, if authors can do what they want to do by combining HTML elements in a certain why, why tell them to do things otherwise (like group headings in some containers)? If some authors wish to use headings with some inner markup instead, why tell them they should switch to using some very different pattern? > So I think the spec should give some advice on the markup. Specifications and tutorials are two different things, or should be. The question about markup for (something that some people see as) subheadings is at a completely different level than the definition of a markup language and associated APIs. There are many approaches, and it is actually easier to specify one possible approach and present arguments in favor of it than to decide, at a general level, which one of such proposals is best. > > Is there a pattern you'd suggest? > I have already described an approach where a heading has internal markup, using <small> or other elements, aimed at displaying parts of it less prominently than the rest. But it is just one possible approach, a simple and robust one. If there is some aspect beyond rendering that should be taken into account, it should be presented and clarified first. If there is no realistically imaginable way in which markup saying "this is a subheading" should be actually used in software, then such markup is not needed - it is even harmful since it causes confusion and questions that lead nowhere. If such usage can be presented, then the concept of "subheading" (or whatever you call it) should be defined much better than simply using a vague English word for it, or a list of vague English words. The "outline" algorithm is the only use I've seen mentioned, and the whole "outline" thing is rather theoretical and with few practical applications. Besides, using just <small> inside headings is compatible with the "outline" idea (the heading texts can be rather long, but they can be long even without considering any "subheading" idea). Apparently an <h2> that is actually coupled with a preceding <h1> rather than a 2nd level heading is not compatible with it, but then the conclusion is simple: if you think "outline" matters, just don't use that approach to "subheading" markup. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 14:35:02 UTC