Re: [whatwg] Sectioning

[Wesley Walser]

I had to read it several times to get it as well.

"...regardless of what implied sections other headings may have created."

That is the part that answers the questions I believe. Yes, any
element that starts an explicit section is *not* a subsection of
nearest implicit sections. Also, any element that create an explicit
section, ends any implicit sections on it's same level.

Thanks,
Wes

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Elizabeth Castro  wrote:
> In 4.4.11, it says
>
> Sectioning content elements are always considered subsections of their
> nearest ancestor element of sectioning content, regardless of what implied
> sections other headings may have created.
>
> Does that line mean that a section element is *not* a subsection of the
> nearest implied section?
> So, if there is no other explicit sectioning content, as in the example
> given, then what would the section element be a subsection of?
> I don't get why Thud ends up on an equal level as Quux and Bar. It seems
> like as a section under h2 it should be a subsection of that Quux h2, just
> as the implied Bar section is a subsection of the implied Foo section.
> thanks,
> Liz
>
>

[whatwg] Sectioning

[Elizabeth Castro]

In 4.4.11, it says

Sectioning content elements are always considered subsections of  
their nearest ancestor element of sectioning content, regardless of  
what implied sections other headings may have created.


Does that line mean that a section element is *not* a subsection of  
the nearest implied section?


So, if there is no other explicit sectioning content, as in the  
example given, then what would the section element be a subsection of?


I don't get why Thud ends up on an equal level as Quux and Bar. It  
seems like as a section under h2 it should be a subsection of that  
Quux h2, just as the implied Bar section is a subsection of the  
implied Foo section.


thanks,
Liz