- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:42:54 +0000 (UTC)
- To: BachusII <BachusII@planet.nl>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, BachusII wrote:
> >
> > This wouldn't handle, e.g.:
> >
> > <body>
> > <h>
> > <section>
> > <h>
> > <navigation>
> > <h>
> >
> > ...where we want the <h>s to render in progressively smaller sizes.
>
> Could you elaborate on that? I fail to see where/how it fails.
Oops, I made a mistake with my markup. I meant to have:
<body>
<h/>
<section>
<h/>
<navigation>
<h/>
The <h> elements do not contain each other; they are contained inside
<body>, <section>, and <navigation> elements. These tree elements can be
arbitrarily nested inside each other and represent different kinds of
sections. What we want is to find the depth, in sections, of the <h>
element, and use that depth to give the elements its size.
However, elements other than section elements (i.e., in this case, other
than <body>, <section>, and <navigation>) should be ignored when
determining the levels. So the headers in the example above should render
identically to those in this example:
<body>
<h/>
<form>
<section>
<div>
<h/>
</div>
<div>
<navigation>
<h/>
...because the <div> and <form> elements don't introduce a new "section"
nesting level.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 12:45:42 UTC