- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 23:11:32 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, dolphinling wrote: > > Suppose you have an outline like this: > > Section > | > +--A [...] > | | > | +--E > | | > | +--F > | | > | +--G > | > +--H > | > +-----I > | > +-----J > > ...where I and J are the same level as C, D, F, and G. Same level in what sense? > If there's no way to skip a heading level, then there's no way to convey > the fact that they're of the same importance. Well, there is one way: nesting <section>s. > One real-world example of this that I know of is > http://www.mozilla.org/projects/nspr/reference/html/, take a look at > chapter 3. Another example would be in taxonomy, where there are lots > and lots of sub- and supercategories, but all species should obviously > be the same heading level. I don't think it's "obvious". Indeed I don't think it's true -- while I could see an argument for consistent styling of the species, I don't consider them to be the same level. In the outline above, I consider I and J to be different levels from F and G. > In the absence of sub/superheadings (which IMO would be a much better > solution, but possibly wouldn't be able to be backwards-compatible (or > maybe they would, I haven't thought about it quite enough...)) there > needs to be some way to skip levels. There are subheadings in HTML5. See the <header> element. And there is a way to skip levels; the <section> element. Are those solutions satisfactory, or do you still want the rank of <h1>-<h6> to imply missing sections? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 16:11:32 UTC