Re: section/heading reformulation

> My interpretation may be way off but this is how I understand it:
>
> Everything following a heading is related to that heading until
> another heading of the same rank is discovered.
>
> There are two types of sections, explicit (using <section>) and
> implied. So for example:
> <h>heading 1</h>
> <section>
>     <p>It is explicitly stated that everything int this section,
>     including other sections and headings are related to the
>     previous heading</p>
>
>     <h>sub heading 1</h>
>     <p>it is implied that this paragraph is related to sub heading 1
>     because it directly follows it</p>
>
>     <h>sub heading 2</h>
>     <p>we have started a new implied section that relates to sub
>     heading 2.<p>
>
>     <p>This paragraph is still related to the sub heading 2.</p>
> </section>
> <section>
>     <p>This new section means that everything within is somehow
>     different than the previous section (if it isn't there would
>     be no need to start a new section), yet still related to
>     heading 1 because a new heading of the same rank a heading 1
>     was not specified.
> </section>
>
> Thats how I see it. I don't think its a good thing that this new structure can be interpreted in
> different ways. The spec needs to be made more clear. An outline that the code produces might
> help.

Sections are nested, so while this is valid, it is not the typical
usage. This would be more in line with what I've seen:

<section>
  <h>Heading 1</h>
  <p>Text</p>
  <section>
    <h>Heading 1.1</h>
    <p>Text</p>
  </section>
  <section>
    <h>Heading 1.2</h>
    <p>Text</p>
  </section>
</section>

<section>
  <h>Heading 2</h>
  <p>Text</p>
  <section>
    <h>Heading 2.1</h>
    <p>Text</p>
  </section>
  <section>
    <h>Heading 2.2</h>
    <p>Text</p>
  </section>
</section>
-- 

Orion Adrian

Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 15:22:05 UTC