- From: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:42:31 -0600
- To: www-html@w3.org
fantasai wrote on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 2:25:36 PM:
> Kelvin Chung wrote:
>> 6. With <section> and <h>, is there any point in keeping <h1> to
>> <h6>?
> I don't see a strong reason to take <h1-6> out, and so IMO it should
> be preserved for backwards-compatability.
XHTML 2.0 isn't supposed to be backwards compatible. I think that's a
good argument for keeping h1-h6 in XHTML 1.2 (or whatever it will be
called).
> It may also be useful for unstructured texts that have headings but
> no definite sections.
I don't get this. Do you mean using h1-h6 for presentation? An example
would be very helpful. I think the following:
<h1></h1>
<p></p>
<h2></h2>
<p></p>
<h2></h2>
<p></p>
Could be rewritten like so, without losing anything:
<h></h>
<p></p>
<section>
<h></h>
<p></p>
</section>
<section>
<h></h>
<p></p>
</section>
Do you think anything is being lost in the transformation?
If a document has multiple levels of headings, either those headings
are purely stylistic or they are implying sections. If there are truly
no sections, I think there will be no structured headings (or one
level of headings, which <h> can handle fine).
I've always believed <section> and <h> are strictly superior to
numbered headings (especially since the number of sections/headings is
unlimited). I would be surprised if there was an example showing
otherwise.
--
John
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 02:42:16 UTC