"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <brentdax(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8b9a5110506070959401ad7b5@mail.gmail.com...
Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)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.
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]