- 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