- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:10:56 -0500
- To: Silvio Peroni <silvio.peroni@unibo.it>
- Cc: Johannes Wilm <johanneswilm@vivliostyle.com>, public-scholarlyhtml@w3.org
Hi Silvio, On 01/12/2015 10:36 , Silvio Peroni wrote: > In RASH (https://github.com/essepuntato/rash/), we use a different > approach to deal with the headings that is basically handled by nested > section. The idea is to use always “h1” element to identify section > titles, while the way they are visualised by a browser is handled by CSS > and strictly dependent on the actual position in the hierarchical > organisation of the sections/sub-sections. Here an example: I think it's fair to say that we've all been attracted to this model at one point or another :) It is, in fact, still an ongoing dispute in the HTML world (see https://github.com/scienceai/scholarly.vernacular.io/issues/39 for a bit more details). I think that this boils down to the sort of decision about authoring versus interchange formats I made in another thread. The sort of model you describe is great for authors. You don't have to care where you are, you can just paste stuff around, and it works. It would be a great model if it were actually supported properly in browsers, in AT, in search engines... but we still to this today do not have an outline model that we can agree on. In an authoring tool, that doesn't matter. For instance in ReSpec I support pretty much what you describe: you can use any h1-h6 and it will *convert* it to the element with the correct depth (http://www.w3.org/respec/guide.html#sections). But that works because there's a transformation step. For an interchange format, we need something that just works with the existing semantics of HTML, not just from spec but largely as understood by existing and widely used tools too. Sadly, that won't fly. Maybe some day! -- • Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon • http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing •
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2015 17:11:29 UTC