- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:55:52 +0200
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > 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> > > 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> That is an interesting case which I have so far avoided by just not using more than one level-1 heading in a document. But obviously this doesn’t do. In the second case, all headings would be second-level headings from both a semantics as a styling point of view, so that doesn’t really work. I see three solutions: 1. just let there be multiple h elements in a section for the body case (but recommend separate sections for the rest), 2. require h elements to be nested in a section and to have only one h element per section, 3. or, taking it a little further, replace body entirely by section, or something like that. Which is better than allowing two body elements to be present, because for one that doesn’t make sense, a document has only one body and the separate sections don’t belong to entirely separate ‘bodies’ of the document, and secondly you want a section to be called a section and not anything else (for different kinds of sections, we have @role after all). ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2005 18:55:54 UTC