W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Validity constraints on <section>

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:06:59 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=_Fk2xr-vjd355NMdR04Bb_DEM161A_nVVSQXkwQ-RWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:

> On 21.3.2013 22:00, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> > I look at it like a book's table of contents. It could have its own
> section
> > or be used before any sections start. In books, the table of contents
> often
> > has its own section and is listed in the table of contents. It would
> create
> > a shadow dom with links to all the sections. In books they would also
> have
> > page number - when printing such a Web page, page numbers could be added,
> > but for online viewing they would just be links.
> I think that Robin's idea of having just memory structure of outline
> which can be then processed in any way is more useful. In my experience
> there are too much ways in which ToC can be presented -- with/without
> numbers, with/without inline formatting inherited from headers, just
> some levels of headers, with more information then just headers (e.g.
> also names of authors of each section), ...
> If I understand to your proposal correctly shadow DOM for outline will
> be constructed in one particular way which will not work for everyone.
> Of course, as always there is trade off between complexity and
> flexibility of approach used.

That's no different to other complex controls in the Web platform: e.g. the
video controls are rendered by every browser, but if you don't like them
and want them to look different, you can run your own.

Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 00:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:01 UTC