"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" brentdax@gmail.com wrote in message news:b8b9a5110506070959401ad7b5@mail.gmail.com...
Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
== 1 ==== 1.1 ==== 1.2 === 1.1 === 1.2
In this particular instance, this structure is what I want for the situation: there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it that the software should restrict me.
No offense, but there *is* something intrinsically wrong with that structure: you're not using that markup semantically. Header levels *should* work relatively, which is why the XHTML 2 standard suggests you use nested <section> tags with unnumbered <h> for the header. What you're describing would break most auto-summarize-from-headers features, not just the one in MediaWiki.
Basically, the case you're describing is simply wrong, and I don't see why we should cater to it.
I am using it semantically.
== Major Header (=== generic explanations) // hidden header ==== quick explanation 1 // which applies to all sub-header sections ==== quick explanation 2 // which applies to all sub-header sections === Sub-header 1 === Sub-header 2
I don't want that first "===" header to show because it breaks up the flow: it's not uniform with the rest of the "===" headers.
Unless you think I ought to head up the "quick explanation" sections with an explicit <H4> to avod the TOC complications, or something equally nasty? The quick explanations need to go there, rather than afterwards, to establish context.