Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
>
> At 12:06 15.04.2002, allan wrote:
> >hi
> >
> >having looked at the various solutions/suggestions i suggest
> >this, if we can do it:
> >
> >see attached gif.
> >
> >
> >* the previous "Top"-image is now called "Toc" and links to
> >the relevant section in the table of contents
> >* the "Top" image is now blue [it could be vice versa of
> >course] and links of course to the top.
> >* the numbers link upwards to parents and parents parents
> >etc etc..
> >* the headers h* are all the same size and font specs [this
> >is only because it is very clear how deep you are -> so no
> >point in eleborating further on the sizes]
>
> I would still be inclined to have a size difference, as it's what is "normal".
ok, maybe i'm looking at it the wrong way. so please correct me if i am wrong. as it is now i have seen up to 4 nested level, spanning from h1, h2, h3, h4. can we assure that we wont have one ore more further levels? if so, i can easily live with the h1-h4 solution. but what if we have, say two more levels. would we then go from h1-h6? and what relative sizes should those then be? it's not that i am against this, i just fail to see any real gain [maybe h1=big, h>1=less big]
Well, I think we should always be able to adapt to any level. But I don't think POD goes any further than =head5, so h1-h5 might be a safe bet. For me, the advantage is clear, you see the difference between big and smaller titles. It's just what's right, and has been used for a long time on the web and even longer in printed media.
That's what I feel about this matter atleast. But I think your solutions up to now are great, don't worry about that.
-- Per Einar Ellefsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
