[thelist] skipping 'hx' levels is bad

rudy r937 at interlog.com
Wed Jan 16 19:31:08 CST 2002


> can you explain why an h3 doesn't sit below an h2 in a hierarchy?

*in a hierarchy,* sure, but that's exactly my point, who says it's a
hierarchy?

i should think it is the folks who want adherence to the
"there-shall-be-no-numerical-gaps" rule that should be the ones doing the
explaining

lemme ask you, why doesn't the vp's secretary sit right below the vp along
with all the directors in the org chart?

"but that's not the same thing!" i can almost hear in exasperated reply

well, let me answer my own question -- it's because the vp's secretary is
not a direct report, but a staff position (i.e. a different relationship)

another way of visualizing this is

    stooges
             secretary
        curly
        larry
        moe


my apologies for mixing the stooges and org chart metaphors, but they do
share certain similarities with the subject at hand

so in the above, i would have   h1 h3 h2 h2 h2

now YOU would say the h3 is wrong, and that the h2's belong to the h1

and I would say the h3 belongs to the h1, and the h2's belong to the h1

the TRUTH is they all belong to the body, and all at the same level

i just don't see why *different importance* implies a hierarchy

it's like you want your org chart to force the secretary to be in a
director's box

>> each of the h2's in the example given -- and all the p's too, for
>> that matter!! -- are "under" the body, all at the same level!!
>
> no, they're under the h1, which is under the body,
> which is under the document...

*no* -- they're under the body

run the original example through the w3c validator --

  <body>
    <h1>
       stooges
    </h1>
    <p>
       introductory comments, a page and a half
    </p>
    <h2>
       curly
    </h2>
    <p>
       stuff about curly
    </p>
    <h2>
       larry
    </h2>
    <p>
       stuff about larry
    </p>
    <h2>
       moe
    </h2>
    <p>
       stuff about moe
    </p>
    <p>
       wrapup comments
    </p>

they're all at the same level

or alternatively, the secretary example --

    <h1>
       stooges
    </h1>
    <h3>
       secretary
    </h3>
    <h2>
       curly
    </h2>
    <h2>
       larry
    </h2>
    <h2>
       moe
    </h2>

see?  the h3's and h2's are at the same level

> except the browsers parse these as a hierarchy....

actually, they probably parse header tags as styled text  ;o)

let us never take what the browsers do as an indication of what is correct

> of course, why wouldn't importance imply hierarchy?  why would
> you make a sub section less important than its parent by 2 degrees?

you beg the question, sir (heh, an actual opportunity to use this phrase in
exactly the right context!)

when you say "subsection" and "parent" you assume hierarchiness

cleanse your mind of that assumption

> ... but remember that HTML 1 and 2 were far from clean specs
> ... XML, in fact, does just  that, and is more toward where HTML
> was headed (as of its end in the XHTML transition)...

agreed, i am looking forward to ditching all vestiges of html some day

heh, i should live so long

remember Completely Obsolete Business Oriented Language?

>... i'd bet there was a meeting with people like you and i
> arguing this same point...

yeah, sometimes i think i'm doomed always to miss the fun by a few years...

> i want my HTML to impart structure to my content...

AND your want to force this on others???


you know, i love discussions like this

i hope they don't bore too many other people

oh well, the delete key is, or should be, everybody's best friend


rudy

my kids are wondering why i've been so GLUED to the computer today







More information about the thelist mailing list