HTML headings article

[Spartanicus]

I wrote an article on HTML headings:
http://codewallop.110mb.com/goodprac...adingology.htm

--
Spartanicus

[Darin McGrew]

Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

I wrote an article on HTML headings:
http://codewallop.110mb.com/goodprac...adingology.htm

Another argument in favor (or if you prefer, in favour :-) of skipping
heading levels is that sometimes, skipping heading levels better reflects
the document structure.

For example, you might have sections which use H2. Some of those sections
might have subsections which use H3, while others would have no
subsections. If the content within those sections and subsections needs to
be structured into "chunks", what heading levels should be used for those
"chunks"? The "never skip heading levels" argument would have some of the
"chunks" use H3, and some of them use H4. But it can make more structural
sense to use H4 for all the "chunks", even though this skips the H3 heading
level in sections which have no subsections.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanford alumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp. com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"When strong encryption is outlawed, only outlaws jvyy hfr fgebat rapelcgvba."

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Darin McGrew:

Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

>I wrote an article on HTML headings:
http://codewallop.110mb.com/goodprac...adingology.htm

Another argument in favor (or if you prefer, in favour :-) of skipping
heading levels is that sometimes, skipping heading levels better
reflects the document structure.

"Another"? It seems that I have to scan through the cited article to see its
argument for skipping heading levels in some cases. It seems to be the
age-old "but h1 looks so BIG!!" argument in slightly modernized clothes.

The article complains about lack of arguments in specifications that
recommend that heading levels be not skipped. To me, the basic argument has
always been so evident that it need not be mentioned: you must not skip
levels for the same reason why you must not skip numbers when counting 1, 2,
3, ... Heading levels indicate logical nesting of parts of a document, and
you cannot nest something at the 3rd level without having something at the
2nd level. But people apparently often view the heading levels as "levels of
importance", and some unfortunate wordings in specifications might
contribute to this misconception.

For example, you might have sections which use H2. Some of those
sections might have subsections which use H3, while others would have
no subsections.

That's possible, though it often results from insufficient structuring or
poor division into sections.

If the content within those sections and subsections
needs to be structured into "chunks", what heading levels should be
used for those "chunks"?

"Chunk" is not an HTML concept or a document structuring concept.

The "never skip heading levels" argument
would have some of the "chunks" use H3, and some of them use H4. But
it can make more structural sense to use H4 for all the "chunks",
even though this skips the H3 heading level in sections which have no
subsections.

You seem to postulate the existence of document structure "bottom up", e.g.
so that at the lowest level we have paragraphs, they may be grouped into a
larger blocks, etc. However, the HTML structuring idea is clearly "top
down". You can't really have it both ways.

The solution is to design the structure according to the "top down" division
into parts. If you can't do this and you need headings for the "chunks",
then you might decide to violate the recommendations in HTML specifications
(and the HTML _standard_, ISO HTML ! :-) ), but it doesn't help to explain
that this is a good thing to do.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Max Demian]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:oQ******** ***********@rea der1.news.sauna lahti.fi

Scripsit Darin McGrew:

>Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

>>I wrote an article on HTML headings:
http://codewallop.110mb.com/goodprac...adingology.htm

Another argument in favor (or if you prefer, in favour :-) of
skipping heading levels is that sometimes, skipping heading levels
better reflects the document structure.

"Another"? It seems that I have to scan through the cited article to
see its argument for skipping heading levels in some cases. It seems
to be the age-old "but h1 looks so BIG!!" argument in slightly
modernized clothes.
The article complains about lack of arguments in specifications that
recommend that heading levels be not skipped. To me, the basic
argument has always been so evident that it need not be mentioned:
you must not skip levels for the same reason why you must not skip
numbers when counting 1, 2, 3, ... Heading levels indicate logical
nesting of parts of a document, and you cannot nest something at the
3rd level without having something at the 2nd level. But people
apparently often view the heading levels as "levels of importance",
and some unfortunate wordings in specifications might contribute to
this misconception.

In a non-CSS document, skipping heading levels is a way to stop the
sub-headings from being so ENORMOUS :->

--
Max Demian

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Max Demian:

In a non-CSS document, skipping heading levels is a way to stop the
sub-headings from being so ENORMOUS :->

Did you actually read the message that you quoted?

Maybe your comment has some subtle sarcasm in it, despite the use of an
emoticon. After all, if _skipping_ levels in the strict sense, e.g. having
h1 followed by h4 with no intervening h2 and h3, is supposed to _solve_ the
size issue, then it's really a laughable "solution". It creates a strong
discrepancy between font sizes of h1 and an element that is supposedly meant
to be logicall a 2nd level heading.

Anyway, people who surf around the net these days with a non-CSS browser or
with CSS support disabled can surely be expected to be interested in the
_content_ and logical _structure_ of pages rather than visual experience.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Max Demian]

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tu t.fiwrote in message
news:m9******** ***********@rea der1.news.sauna lahti.fi

Scripsit Max Demian:

>In a non-CSS document, skipping heading levels is a way to stop the
sub-headings from being so ENORMOUS :->

Did you actually read the message that you quoted?

Maybe your comment has some subtle sarcasm in it, despite the use of
an emoticon. After all, if _skipping_ levels in the strict sense,
e.g. having h1 followed by h4 with no intervening h2 and h3, is
supposed to _solve_ the size issue, then it's really a laughable
"solution". It creates a strong discrepancy between font sizes of h1
and an element that is supposedly meant to be logicall a 2nd level
heading.
Anyway, people who surf around the net these days with a non-CSS
browser or with CSS support disabled can surely be expected to be
interested in the _content_ and logical _structure_ of pages rather
than visual experience.

I was thinking of a non-CSS page.

h2 and even h3 are very large by default. Sometimes you just don't want the
font to be so large for a sub-heading, especially if it's a long one, which
would dominate the page.

I agree that using CSS is best, but for a simple, single, portable page
straight HTML might be appropriate.

--
Max Demian

[David Dorward]

On Apr 10, 1:37 pm, "Max Demian" <max_dem...@big foot.comwrote:

I was thinking of a non-CSS page.

h2 and even h3 are very large by default. Sometimes you just don't want the
font to be so large for a sub-heading, especially if it's a long one, which
would dominate the page.

I agree that using CSS is best, but for a simple, single, portable page
straight HTML might be appropriate.

Nothing prevents you using CSS in a simple, single, portable page. It
just means a style element rather than a link.

However, if you really wish to return to the markup of the previous
millenium, then put font elements inside the headings rather than
using the wrong semantics.

[Toby A Inkster]

Darin McGrew wrote:

Another argument in favor (or if you prefer, in favour of skipping
heading levels is that sometimes, skipping heading levels better reflects
the document structure.

FWIW, I agree with you here.

For example

<h1= Document heading
<h2= Chapter heading
<h3= Subchapter heading
<h4= Heading for a "Case Study"

where case studies may appear within either a chapter or a subchapter. For
purposes of consistency, it may be considered preferable to have all case
studies at the same heading level.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

[D.M. Procida]

Toby A Inkster <us**********@t obyinkster.co.u kwrote:

Another argument in favor (or if you prefer, in favour of skipping
heading levels is that sometimes, skipping heading levels better reflects
the document structure.

FWIW, I agree with you here.

For example

<h1= Document heading
<h2= Chapter heading
<h3= Subchapter heading
<h4= Heading for a "Case Study"

where case studies may appear within either a chapter or a subchapter. For
purposes of consistency, it may be considered preferable to have all case
studies at the same heading level.

Absolutely. There are any number of circumstances where the logical
structure of a document or of information sometimes skips a level. This
is not just about consistency of appearance either, but a matter of
reflecting the logical structure of the document.

Daniele

[John Hosking]

Toby A Inkster wrote:

Darin McGrew wrote:

>>Another argument in favor (or if you prefer, in favour of skipping
heading levels is that sometimes, skipping heading levels better reflects
the document structure.

FWIW, I agree with you here.

For example

<h1= Document heading
<h2= Chapter heading
<h3= Subchapter heading
<h4= Heading for a "Case Study"

where case studies may appear within either a chapter or a subchapter. For
purposes of consistency, it may be considered preferable to have all case
studies at the same heading level.

Well, then: how about we split the difference. Keep the semantic logic
of heading *levels*, but bend their *presentation* to suit the content.

h1 {font-size:180%;} /* or whatever sizes we really like */
h2 {font-size:160%;} /* and bold and text-align as we like */
h3 {font-size:140%;}
h4 {font-size:120%;}
..caseStudy {font-size:120%; bottom-border:1px dotted grey;}

....
<h2>Chapter 3: A New Dawn<h2>
<p>yadda yadda</p>

<h3>The Details</h3>
<p>More blah blah with intro text for a fascinating case study</p>

<h4 class="caseStud y">Case Study: George Lucas at 43</h4>
<p>text of the fascinating study</p>

<h2>Chapter 4: Two Squared</h2>
<p>still more text</p>

<h3 class="caseStud y">Case Study: Carrie Fisher's Hair</h3>
<p>Text from this ludicrous example...</p>
etc.

This may _look_ mixed up to the fastidious reader, since the next
heading size jumps down unexpectedly, but that's what matches the
content, if you say you want all case studies to look the same.
Meanwhile, the heading level flow matches Spartanicus' strictness.

--
John