E-mail List Archives
Re: Header tag
From: Lori K. Brown
Date: Apr 30, 2003 9:32PM
- Next message: Lisa Marie Lindenschmidt: "Low literacy"
- Previous message: Simon Jessey: "Re: Header tag"
- Next message in Thread: Alastair Campbell: "RE: Header tag"
- Previous message in Thread: Simon Jessey: "Re: Header tag"
- View all messages in this Thread
I know that lists can be semantically rich, I just find it completely
crazy that HTML, the semantic structure that was ORIGINALLY DESIGNED for
research paper type content, presumably headings and paragraphs, is now
being so overconstrained that its originators would get their hands
slapped for using it as they themselves originally intended. And I think
that list coding should be used for things that an ordinary person would
think make sense to be described as a list. And a long outline of text
headings and paragraphs fails this smell test, completely.
I don't understand what is gained by anyone with this strictness. It seems
pointless and off-putting, and runs counter to the common sense
inclusiveness that the web should aspire to.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lori K. Brown" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: Header tag
>> My assumption, reading J. Foliot's lucid example, is that there is
>> that is to say, paragraphs and things, following each of the headings.
>> no, Simon, it's not a list.
> I think perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by a list. To see an
> of how list markup can be used, see my weblog (in my signature). Each
> is a list item, and each item can have headings, paragraphs, tables,
> and other elements. Using list markup creates a logical, hierachical
> structure (with semantic richness) for something that has many sections
> subsections. Such an approach is widely used by forward-thinking web
> designers because of its good structure, accessibility and easy-to-style
> If you think about it, a collection of 'sections', which in turn may have
> collections of sub-sections, are nothing more than nested ordered or
> unordered lists. Since list markup can contain pretty much anything, it
> makes sense to use it.
> In cases where such an approach cannot work, my _recommendation_ is to try
> and break things up into shorter documents, to _avoid_ messing with the
> structured nature of headings. I have created countless pages and I have
> thus far not found the need to break that heading structure in the way
> thread has described.
> << Simon, you are bending over backwards to defend an illogical and
> indefensible interpretation of the standards. Separate pages for each?
> is simply bananas. If they were trying to make me roll my eyes and give up
> on validation, this goes a long way toward success. Any architecture that
> requires us to break things up into arbitrary tiny pieces is just crazy
> talk. >>
> It is unfortunate that you have chosen to interpret my suggestions in this
> way. I assure you, my intention was merely to contribute to an interesting
> discussion, and to give my thoughts on the perceived fault in the Bobby
> tool. I am a regular user of Bobby because I like to do my best to ensure
> web pages are as accessible as possible. I consider Bobby 'approval' to be
> as necessary as HTML validation, so it is important to me that the client
> works correctly:-
> Simon Jessey
> w: http://jessey.net/blog/
> e: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
Lori K. Brown
User Interface Engineer
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,