[thelist] skipping 'hx' levels is bad

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Thu Jan 17 11:42:12 CST 2002


> From: "rudy" <r937 at interlog.com>
>
> > 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?

as the author of the page, i do...

otherwise, why would i use the <h#> elements?  better yet, if you 
aren't going to make your content structured as a hierarchy, why 
are *you* using them?

> 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

i have been...  and i think it's a pretty simple argument:

"Heading information may be used by user agents, for example, to 
construct a table of contents for a document automatically." 
[http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-H1]

given that headers can be used to denote structure, and given that 
their very nature allows them to be used to denote structure, why 
*wouldn't* i want to allow the user or user agent to actually *get* 
structure from the page?

for what reason would i want to *not* impart structure to my 
content?  why would i want to exclude those who can get the 
structure or who care about it simply by *not* including an <h2>?

and why *would* i go from <h1> to <h3> for reasons other than 
style?

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

my answer: politics

other answer: she's not in the chain of command in the org chart, 
she's in a different node...

the <h1>-<h6> is effectively linear, you wouldn't use it to represent 
a non-linear hierarchy...

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

well, it's not, it's a non-linear structure, whereas a page tends to 
be...

in traditional design, non-linear things are represented as captions, 
pull-quotes, alert boxes, etc...

linear content is part of the document content itself, and falls into 
line quite nicely...

> 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)
[...]

thank you -- it's *not* linear, so it's not within the domain of the 
linear hierarchy denoted by the <h1>-<h6> elements...

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

hah!

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

i wouldn't... i'd have h1 h2 h2 h2, and the secretary wouldn't be on 
the chart because she's not in the direct line of command...

if you *did* insist on fitting her into a linear chain, mine would be:

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

but again, she's not in the line of command, so this implies support 
staff are on par with the stooges, which is not true...

which is why i wouldn't try to fit your example into a linear chart in 
the real world...

> 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

you are correct, the h3 belongs to the h1, but i still think it is wrong 
because you're forcing a linear structure onto a non-linear model...

although i do see better now where you are coming from...

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

not true... the secretary, by that argument, is on the same level as 
stooges then?

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

different importance *would* imply a hierarchy...

a hierarchy of importance...

that holds true in a vacuum, outside of this discussion...  what's 
salient is that when you quantify levels of "importance," you are, in 
fact, quantifying a structure to that importance, which means 
you've just created a hierarchy -- complete with levels of 
importance and a relationship between them...

difference + levels = hierarchy

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

no i don't, it's not my org chart... i would only use the h1-h6 for a 
linear chain of command, branching it for each path...  very few 
orgs have a linear chain of command, after all...

> >> 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

the body element is part of the html element... it sits on the same 
level as the head...

you can't nest head inside body, right?  so body is, in fact, under 
the document document...

and you can't have h1 without a body right?  it won't validate... h1 
is, in fact, under the body...

and by the law of syllogism:

document > body > h1

> run the original example through the w3c validator --
[...]
> they're all at the same level
[...]
> or alternatively, the secretary example --
[...]
> see?  the h3's and h2's are at the same level
> 

just because it doesn't error out doesn't mean they aren't on the 
same level...  you're making an structural assertion based on it not 
throwing an error on code...

remember, up until two months or so ago, the W3C validator 
accepted &#151; as a valid entity for the em-dash...

IOW, they refine, too...

does that mean they're wrong?  no...  but it doesn't mean you're 
right...

again, i *can* impart structure, so i will because it's silly *not* to...

> > except the browsers parse these as a hierarchy....
> 
> actually, they probably parse header tags as styled text  ;o)

some do, but some gather structure, too... and i choose to support 
them...

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

no, but if the browser gains extra information about my document 
from better coding, i'll do it...

> > 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

erm, wasn't your example about a hierarchy? a nd didn't i address 
that levels or importance are a hierarchy?

> > ... 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

+1

> heh, i should live so long

+1

> remember Completely Obsolete Business Oriented Language?

nope, always avoided it... hah!

> > i want my HTML to impart structure to my content...
> 
> AND your want to force this on others???
[...]

what am i forcing?

i'm only forcing you if i hold a gun to your head...  i *might* be 
forcing you if i made the HTML validator work my way as well...

and i'm not forcing users...

btw, how does XHTML validate non-sequential h# elements?





More information about the thelist mailing list