- From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 06:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-html@w3.org
> From: Masayasu Ishikawa [SMTP:mimasa@w3.org] > > As you may guess, this constraints have "side effect", e.g. you > cannot use DIV to apply styles that cover a heading and its following > section ... you may find another "side effect" in forms. > [DJW:] I'd consider this a major problem, not a mere side effect. Current best practice is to use tables instead of frames for layout (does ISO HTML have frames?) and theoretical best practice is to use fixed or absolutely positioned divisions (until NS 4 goes out of circulation, this is not a realistic option). That means that headings will be subordinate to TD or DIV in well written W3C HTML 4 documents, which use the commecially expected graphical idioms. As it is, you can get past both Bobby (without violating single A accessibility) and validator.w3.org whilst not having a single Hn element, even when there are many logical headings (e.g. <http://www.setileague.org/> is a relatively clean++ page that uses FONT instead of Hn and passes the above tests; I can't convince them to use Hn for headings and LI for lists). By forcing an element that people are already failing to use (properly or at all) to be used only directly below BODY, they are finally killing Hn, rather than encouraging its proper use. [DJW:] ++ It was better, but got the Javascript and table bugs. -- --------------------------- DISCLAIMER --------------------------------- Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 14:39:55 UTC