- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:31:46 +0000
fantasai wrote: > > I would define things as follows: Generally, this sounds good to me. > - The first header in a <section> is that section's top-level header > - Depth of section increases: > - when heading number increases > - when <section> nesting increases--but this increments from > the last top-level <section> header rather than the last header Does this mean that markup like: <h1>Level 1,1</h1> <h2>Level 2,1</h2> <h1>Level 1,2</h1> <section> <h1>Level 2,2</h1> </section> would give rise to the outline: Level 1,1 +-Level 2,1 +-Level 2,2 Level 1,2 That seems counter-intuitive (the outline no longer has the headings in document-order). I would prefer the outline become: Level 1,1 +-Level 2,1 Level 1,1 +-Level 2,2 i.e. <section> always appends to the previous heading in it's parent section with a depth equal to the first heading in it's parent section. This may be what you are saying in the next point, but I want to clarify it applies to <section> as well as <hn> > - Depth of section does not decrease with a header number that is higher > than the section's top-level header's number. (This means all > subsequent header number increments increment based on this header's > number instead of the top-level header's number.) > - Section header immediately following a section header of the same > level > is considered a subtitle. I haven't seen this much used in practice (people typically use <h{n+1}> for a subheading with heading <h{n}>) and, generally, I prefer the existing mechanism (i.e. <header>) as it allows things like: <h1>Main Heading</h1> <div> <h1>Subheading</h1> </div> i.e. it preserves the neutrality of non-sematic elements.
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 02:31:46 UTC