Web Technologies

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:54:24 +1000 Message-ID: <42AAD0F0.1080401@lachy.id.au> To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> CC: www-html@w3.org

David Woolley wrote:
>>Then that would make <h> a separator in some cases too. e.g.
> 
> I think that is simply a side effect of not being able to specify an 
> adequate content mode in the formal language.  The text says:
> 
>    The heading for the section is the one that is a child of the section
>    element.
> 
> in which the use of "The" implies only one h as direct child of
> any section.

Although, the examples provided for both the h element in section 8.5 
and the section element in section 8.8 of the current draft clearly 
demonstrate that this is not the intention, because some section 
elements contain multiple h elements.

> However the text needs to make the, at most, one h per
> section rule explicit - do I need to propose that formally to get it
> into the system?

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>

If only one heading per section were allowed, then that would also need 
to apply to the body element, yet that can't be replaced with markup 
like this:
<body>
   <h>Heading 1</h>
   ...
</body>
<body>
   <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>

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/ 

Web Technologies

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