WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta. Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive
reference on today's web technologies.
Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!
Jewett, Jim J wrote:
> I understand (and agree with) the decision to replace H1 through H6.
>
> <section class="legal"> is certainly better than overloading <h6>.
>
> But I don't think the current definition of <h> fully solves the
> semantics<->markup mapping problem. I suggest changing the models of
> section, div, and block* to include at most one optional title as the first
> element.
A good idea, but one which I feel should be addressed by the use of the
<caption> element instead of the <title> or <h> element.
> Semantically, section would be something you might expect to see in a table
> of contents, like a chapter. div or block* would be more like an example;
> an example within a chapter is not more important than an example within a
> subchapter.
>
> <section>
> <h>Title of the first section.</h>
> asdlfjasldfjk asdlfjkasldfjk
> <div><h>minor heading</h></div>
> <section>
> This section has no heading.
> <section>
> <h>level 3 heading.</h>
> <div><h>equally minor heading.</h></div>
> </section>
> </section>
> <section>
Formatting <h>'s that are not children of <section>'s is at all
difficult in CSS. The CSS selector :not(section)>h would do nicely.
If you are arguing that it should not be treated semantically the same,
well that 's one reason I favor using <caption> instead of <h> for this
purpose.
> Additional problems with the current definition, based on the draft
> example:
>
> <body>
> <h>This is a top level heading</h>
> Oh, h floats up and heads the whole document.
> Also, things can be outside of any section.
>
> <p>
> ....If I put <h>h directly inside a paragraph</h> that would be wrong.
> Instead, I have to write
> <blockquote>
> <div>
> <h>This is still attached to the top of the
> document, right?</h>
> There was no section yet, so it should float up to
> body or html.
> The heading is OK now <em>because</em> I'm inside a
> div,
> which can appear inside a blockquote which can
> appear inside a
> paragraph.
> </div>
> </blockquote>
> </p>
> <section>
> <p>....</p>
> <h>This is a second-level heading</h>
> It applies to the whole section, including the paragraph that
> already finished.
> Well, unless there is an implicit div created by the h and ended by
> the next h?
> <p>....</p>
> <h>This is another second-level heading</h>
> It applies to the same section though, so it must be retitled? Or
> maybe h really
> maps to the next section beneath it?
> <p>....</p>
> </section>
> <section>
> <p>....</p>
> <h>This is another second-level heading</h>
> <p>....</p>
> <section>
> <h>This is a third-level heading</h>
> <p>....</p>
> </section>
> </section>
Actually no, your <h> wouldn't get moved up, altho they would still
have their heading level associated with the number of sections that
they are embedded in. Given the way h is being used, might it not be
worthwhile to allow <h> to only be a child of <body> and <section>.
The way that <section> and <h> are linked semantically certainly makes
me think that it might be a good idea. Semantically <section><div><h>
makes as much sense as <object><div><param> but while the first one is
currently valid, the second is not and I have come to the conclusion
that neither should be.
