displaying line breaks?

[Andy Dingley]

But ignoring ordering is understanding too little about HTML and
weakening its scope.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here. Do you mean W3C
HTML? That doesn't require header ordering anyway.

Secondly how do you "weaken" the scope? The scope has either a broad
(any document) or narrow range (those documents where ordered headers
are Harlan's a priori assumption). My view is that breadth is good,
and that there are "rational" documents where it's unnecessary to
constrain ordering. I don't see this as any sort of "weakening"
though.

Let us not forget, however, that the OP was using header tags to obtain
the styling he wanted, not to suggest any hierarchy, and *this* I think
is inarguably foolish.

No argument with that.

 

[C A Upsdell]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here. Do you mean W3C
HTML? That doesn't require header ordering anyway.

I mean that using header tags willy-nilly -- carelessly, if you will --
ignores their intended purpose, ignores why they are part of HTML.

Secondly how do you "weaken" the scope?

If many designers used header tags for reasons other than indicating
hierarchy, this weakens the effectiveness of the tags. Consider, if you
will, a blind person with a talking browser: if many designers used
header tags inappropriately, this weakens their use for the blind.
Using tables for layout can have much the same effect.

 

[Andy Dingley]

I mean that using header tags willy-nilly -- carelessly, if you will --
ignores their intended purpose, ignores why they are part of HTML.

Using them willy-nilly, or even using them carefully and precisely for
purely presentational reasons is of course bad. I'm sure we've no
diagreement here.

However my point is that W3C HTML <h*> tags have a meaning defined for
them that implies a _level_ (i.e. a relative importance) but it does
not require an _ordering_ to them, such that <h2> may only follow a
<h1>, or that there must be one and only one <h1> on a page. Ignoring
a rigid ordering isn't the same thing as using them willy-nilly, so
long as they're still being used with regard to their importance.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Andy Dingley:

However my point is that W3C HTML <h*> tags have a meaning defined for
them that implies a _level_ (i.e. a relative importance)

You still don't understand the word "level". It's time that you redo
your HTML 101 homework, at least before you preach about HTML in public.

 

[C A Upsdell]

What you're ignoring is the fact that not every use of mis-ordered headers
is the result of a careless designer using them for layout. Some styles
deliberately skip a level - APA formatting*, for instance, specifies that
a document that uses two levels of headings must use levels 1 & 3.

I'm not ignoring your "fact": I said "many designers", I did not say
"most designers" or "all designers". If you had read my earlier posts
in this thread, you will have noted that I also said that a good
designer will know when strict ordering is not appropriate.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Ben C:

I don't understand the word "level" in that case either. What are you
saying-- that it implies nesting or a hierarchy?

As in so many issues, the HTML 2.0, in addition to reflecting the mostly
sound original design principles of HTML, is a great improvement over
its successors in clarity:

"The six heading elements, H1 through H6, denote section headings.
Although the order and occurrence of headings is not constrained by the
HTML DTD, documents should not skip levels (for example, from H1 to H3),
as converting such documents to other representations is often
problematic."

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html#SEC5.4

 

[dorayme]

It's not a "fact," it's a fact

It may well turn out that there are no such things as facts or that they
are linguistic objects that have certain properties (like being in a
particular relation - called "being true" to the world). If so, it may
well be correct to put the word in quotes, as is quite usual and proper
when referring to words and sentences.

If anyone finds this helpful, please send $US 0.47 to me to further my
investigations into the matter.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Scripsit Ben C:


As in so many issues, the HTML 2.0, in addition to reflecting the mostly
sound original design principles of HTML, is a great improvement over
its successors in clarity:

The original design principles of HTML didn't have room for images.
They might have been architecturally sound, but they weren't
particularly useful. Things have moved on since.

"The six heading elements, H1 through H6, denote section headings.
Although the order and occurrence of headings is not constrained by the
HTML DTD, documents should not skip levels (for example, from H1 to H3),
as converting such documents to other representations is often
problematic."
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html#SEC5.4

If you're writing HTML 2.0, with its narrow focus still too closely
coupled to "publishing particle physics", then you observe the
recommendation of HTML 2.0. Those of us who've moved to HTML 4 are
following the rec for HTML 4, where this ordering is not part of it.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Andy Dingley:

The original design principles of HTML didn't have room for images.

We were discussing headings, not images. Are you intentionally trying to
confuse people, or just confused yourself?

They might have been architecturally sound, but they weren't
particularly useful.

Are you babbling just to keep yourself warm? There's nothing
architechturally sound in the way images were introduced to HTML, but we
weren't discussing images.

If you're writing HTML 2.0,

Are you intentionally trying to confuse people, or just confused
yourself?

As I mentioned, the HTML 2.0 specification describes the original design
goals of HTML and makes it very clear what headings were meant to mean.
Do you wish to continue attempts to turn people's minds to other issues
so that this would be missed?

Those of us who've moved to HTML 4 are
following the rec for HTML 4, where this ordering is not part of it.

There was no intentional change to heading semantics in HTML 3.2, HTML
4.0, or HTML 4.01. They are just sloppier, partly because they are
consortium products rather than the results of truly open processes.

 

[Roy A.]

Bugger the standard. I care about as much about ISO HTML as I do about
them mandating a standard for straight bananas, or King Knut deciding on
sea levels.

Your silly old bat. Isn't it EU that demand straight cucumbers.

You, I and most of us don't give a shit about ISO standards. It
doesn't
matter before the government say it does, or the big off-shore company
says it i does. In my country; even if you want to make, and deliver
a simple screwdriver to the defence force (military), your whole
company
have to follow ISO 9000 or ISO 9001 or whatever. ISO 9000 is more easy
to follow for a small company, than a big company. But for a small
company
that think they never can compete, that might be a big problem. If
they
don't understand the real issue, they would have to hire one more
person. In a bigger company, that same person could do the same work
in
a bigger scale. That's why we play golf, isn't it?