Re: modified header element definition in HTML 5.1

Gotcha. But shouldn't that be the case? I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario where, assuming a logical document structure, navigational aids in a header wouldn't properly be scoped to the ancestor sectioning content or sectioning root. Isn't it expected that a heading or other introductory content in a header applies to the content in that header's ancestor section? Why would it be different for navigational aids?

Either way, what about something like the following?

"The header element represents introductory content for its nearest ancestor sectioning content or sectioning root element. A header typically contains headings and navigational aids."

To the degree that navigational aids provide an indication of what is coming and a way to access it, aren't they introductory content in a way?

Cheers,

Jason

On 9/03/2013, at 11:55 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jason,
> 
> I thought about similar wording, but didn't use it as it implies the navigational aids in the header are scoped to its nearest ancestor sectioning content or sectioning root element.
> 
> Which I wanted to avoid as I don't consider it to be a necessary or useful restriction
> 
> any thoughts?
> 
> with regards
> 
> SteveF
> --
> HTML 5.1
> 
> 
> On 9 March 2013 10:44, Jason Kiss <jason@accessibleculture.org> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> These various clarifications you're providing are really useful.
> 
> I'd suggest a slight change to the first paragraph as follows, just to
> avoid the "a header represents a header" bit:
> 
> "The header element represents a group of introductory or navigational
> aids for its nearest ancestor sectioning content or sectioning root
> element."
> 
> Jason Kiss
> 
> On 9/03/2013, at 23:14, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The header element represents a header for its nearest ancestor sectioning content or sectioning root element. A header typically contains a group of introductory or navigational aids.
> 

Received on Saturday, 9 March 2013 11:23:22 UTC