[whatwg] Question on (new) header and hgroup

On 3 Jul 2009, at 12:00, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
> And it seems like introducing a new element like <subheading>
> would have the disadvantage of complicating the heading hierarchy
> and confusing authors about when and where to use <subheading>
> versus using <h2> to <h6>, and also requiring that the spec detail
> how to deal with cases like, e.g.:
>  <h1>
>    <h2>
>    <subheading>
> ...or whatever.

The rule could be simple: it doesn't change document outline, applies  
to single <hx> preceding it.

> Yeah, we could spec the document-conformance rules
> to disallow weird <h2>-<h6>/<subheading> combinations, but even
> then, the spec would have to state what UAs are supposed to do
> when authors don't follow the rules and throw in weird,
> non-conformant combinations anyway.

That applies to <hgroup> too. It too needs to handle weird  
combinations and non-conforming uses.

IMHO <hgroup> is more difficult to use and has potential to break  
document outline, so it would need more complicated error recovery  
than <subheading>.

> So, on balance, <hgroup> seems like it hits the sweet spot pretty
> well, as far as providing something that meets the various
> requirements (e.g., a means to associate headings with
> subheadings, without causing an inordinate amount of confusion to
> authors, and without adding an inordinate amount of processing
> complexity for implementors).

I disagree.

The discussion started because <hgroup> was difficult to understand  
and could be confused with <header>.

It increases complexity of document outline algorithm and authoring by  
changing meaning and rank of <hx> in context of <hgroup>.

regards, Kornel

Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 04:58:50 UTC