- From: Jonathan Worent <jworent@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 08:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
--- Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > That was only my interpretation of the current spec, not necessarily the way I think it should be. In fact, I don't think it should be that way. I think it should be your way. It makes the relationships obvious. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 15:27:38 UTC