Next XML changes

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at
Thu May 13 14:01:26 PDT 2004

Randy McMurchy said the following on 13-05-2004 22:20:
> (Maybe just a hair less whitespace all the way around)

I'll try to put dim it a bit; perhaps Bruce will find it acceptable too. 
  Then, if we don't get much more complaints about it, we don't have to 
poll either. Hope that is okay for you, Bruce?

> 1. I do like the subtle border around the instruction commands.

Yes, I'm going to include those too.

> 2. On Linux Mozilla-1.6 and MS Netscape-7.1, the link
> descriptions on the bottom (bison, groff) are slightly outside
> the shaded area.

Probably a padding issue; it's been reported before and I'll look into 
it; unfortunately there's not enough hours in a day.

> 3. I would probably remove the period from the end of the
> installation dependencies. (I realize not a CSS issue)


> 4. You're already aware of the MSIE broken link issues.

Will get fixed (I try to not to use Windows :-)

> Presentation aside, you may want to look at the structural
> aspect of the document.
> You are not using the {h?} header tags correctly. These tags
> are designed for document *structure*, not presentation. It
> appears you are using them for presentation.

No, actually I don't! :-) The whole exercise of changing the markup has 
always been for seperating it from the presentation and to make it more 
semantically correct within the confines of XHTML!

> Though this is down in the pecking order of importance as far
> as the W3C Accessibility Guideline's go, it is still of
> importance to folks who use specialized browsers. For example,
> some text-to-speech browsers search the document for {h1}
> headers, display the text, the follow down the {h2}, {h3}
> *structure* of the document.
> It's like an outline:
> {h1}
> 	{h2}
> 		{h3}
> 		{h3}
> 			{h4}
> 		{h3}
> 	{h2}
> Take this with a grain of salt, your document *looks* good,
> but structurally, is improper according to accessibility
> guidelines.

You are right that my use of headers is not a proper reflection of it's 
actual structure, which is like this:

book title - h4
chapter title - h3
page title - h1
section title -h2

They're not chosen at random though. I coded them based on importance 
and relevance instead of hierarchical structure within the book. I think 
that the most descriptive header of a page is the page title - thus, 
it's h1. Section title is the header of a section on a page. The book 
title, OTOH, is actually redundant within this context and is repeated 
on every page, thus, it's h4. Same with chapter title & section title.

Wether that is more or less in line with WCAG or Section 508 is a matter 
of interpretation and semantic practice (here: the practice assigning of 

Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list