Steven Pemberton wrote:
Is there any chance that the h1/h2/h3 family could just be removed
completely from XHTML 2? I'm not sure they're really necessary any
more. For backwards compatibility, there are lots of problematic parts
of XHTML 2. Maybe we should just jettison the whole h1/h2/h3 mess, and
start over clean?
I personally sympathise with this point of view. However, there has been
some criticism of XHTML2 for not being sufficiently backwards compatible
(maybe because the community interested in XHTML is bimodal on this
issue). While getting rid of h1/h2/h3 would clean up the mess, on the
other hand they don't actually get in the way of the new approach.
What does the HTMLWG think of the approach that the WHATWG have taken
with (X)HTML5 [1], who have also added support for <section>, but
instead of introducing a non-backwards-compatible <h> element, have
retained <h1> to <h6> and redefined the semantics such that they act
like <h> when used within <section>.
It's a rather complex algorithm to describe, but it effectively works
like this:
<body>
<h1>Level 1</h1>
<section>
<h1>Level 2</h1>
<section>
<h1>Level 3</h1>
</section>
</section>
</body>
For better backwards compatibility, authors can continue to use <h2> to
<h6> for level 2 to 6 headings, but that's not required. That gives all
the benefits that <section>/<h> do in XHTML2, with better backwards
compatibility.
In fact, has the HTMLWG considered working with the WHATWG to produce
one HTML spec, instead of two competing specs, especially now that
XHTML2 will apparently be using the XHTML1.x namespace [2]?
[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#headings
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0137
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
