- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:54:24 +1000
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
David Woolley wrote: >>Then that would make <h> a separator in some cases too. e.g. > > I think that is simply a side effect of not being able to specify an > adequate content mode in the formal language. The text says: > > The heading for the section is the one that is a child of the section > element. > > in which the use of "The" implies only one h as direct child of > any section. Although, the examples provided for both the h element in section 8.5 and the section element in section 8.8 of the current draft clearly demonstrate that this is not the intention, because some section elements contain multiple h elements. > However the text needs to make the, at most, one h per > section rule explicit - do I need to propose that formally to get it > into the system? Is it really a good idea to mandate one heading per section? Consider the following example: <body> <h>Heading 1</h> ... <h>Heading 2</h> ... </body> If only one heading per section were allowed, then that would also need to apply to the body element, yet that can't be replaced with markup like this: <body> <h>Heading 1</h> ... </body> <body> <h>Heading 2</h> ... </body> The only valid alternative would be to include an additional section element around each section, leaving no heading as a direct child of body. eg. <body> <section> <h>Heading 1</h> ... </section> <section> <h>Heading 2</h> ... </section> </body> -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2005 11:54:37 UTC