Re: [XHTML 2.0] Attribute level for h element?

Devin Bayer wrote:

> On Jul 18, 2005, at 23:17, Kelly Miller wrote:
>> I was just thinking to myself, since the h element is supposed to  
>> represent a header, shouldn't it be possible to have multiple h  
>> elements in a section?  After all, sections can have a header, a  
>> subheader, a sub-subheader, and so on, and these headers may not  
>> have their own section elements.  So the question is, wouldn't it  be 
>> semantically better to have the h element have an attribute that  
>> represents what level a header is (main header, subheader, sub- 
>> subheader, etc.), and allow multiple h elements in a section?
> Hum.  But I don't think that they should be seperate.  Instead, the  
> main header is actually a part of the larger header (including the  
> subheader) which is a larger part of the sub-subheader.  To illustrate:
> <section>
>     <h>
>         <subheader>
>             <mainheader>Eating Grass</mainheader>: The time of your  life
>         </subheader>
>         <subheader>
>             By Bison
>         </subheader>
>     </h>
> In this case, a table of contents may only want to include the parts  
> of the header that are most important, in this case, "Eating Grass",  
> but the whole thing is actually the header.  Maybe the best way to  
> mark this up would be for headers to simply be allowed to contain  
> other headers
Yeah, that's another good example.  The reason I bring this up is 
because of the current demo XHTML 2.0 code I've seen, people seem to be 
doing this with multiple section headers:

	<p>An article by ____</p>

However, is the p element really appropriate for marking up subheaders?  
Seems to me like the semantic value of the subheader is lost in this 
case, and the same thing would happen if a div were used.  I suppose one 
could fix it using the role="" attribute, but since this is technically 
a header as well, wouldn't it be more semantically accurate to use the h 
element to mark this up?

-- - Get Firefox! - Reclaim Your Inbox!

Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2005 06:46:35 UTC