Web Technologies

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 
doesnā??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 
doesnā??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 doesnā??t make sense, a document has only 
one body and the separate sections donā??t belong to entirely separate 
ā??bodiesā?? 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.

Web Technologies

Re: [XHTML2] How are UAs to interpret <h> and <hx> elements?