9474 2010-04-10 04:50:51 +0000 Renaming hgroup to h would be better (like XHTML2), so we can deprecate 'h*' in the future without the "group" sounding strange 2010-10-04 14:28:23 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-hgroup-element P3 normal LC 1 contributor ian bugzilla ian mike Ms2ger public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 34723 0 contributor 2010-04-10 04:50:51 +0000 Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-hgroup-element Comment: 'h’ would be better (like XHTML2), so we can deprecate 'h*' in the future without the "group" sounding strange Posted from: 90.136.87.139 34737 1 Ms2ger 2010-04-11 11:35:59 +0000 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 9265 *** 34937 2 bugzilla 2010-04-13 10:09:01 +0000 Renaming ‘hgroup’ to ‘h’ is similar to, but not the same as adding ‘h’ to the group of ‘h1’ through ‘h6’ (which is bug 9265). I think it has been discussed in the mailing lists, though, and wasn’t accepted. 34967 3 ian 2010-04-13 22:08:03 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: We have <h> already, it's just spelt <h1>. Using <h1> rather than <h> has the benefit that it is backwards-compatible with legacy UA renderings. 35016 4 bugzilla 2010-04-14 07:36:55 +0000 No, this request was about *renaming* ‘hgroup’ to ‘h’, not *adding* ‘h’. One (at least I) wouldn’t nest ‘h1’ inside ‘h1’: <h1><h1>Heading</h1><h2>Subheading</h2></h1> instead of <hgroup><h1>Heading</h1><h2>Subheading</h2></hgroup> since we wouldn’t need ‘hgroup’ then at all. The proposed alternative was this: <h><h1>Heading</h1><h2>Subheading</h2></h> Unlike ‘h’, current ‘hgroup‘ with only text-node children would be awkward, because it didn’t “group h*”. <hgroup>Heading</hgroup> <h>Heading</h> 35017 5 Ms2ger 2010-04-14 08:24:42 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > The proposed alternative was this: > > <h><h1>Heading</h1><h2>Subheading</h2></h> > > Unlike 'h', current 'hgroup' with only text-node children would be awkward, > because it didn't 'group h*'. > > <hgroup>Heading</hgroup> > <h>Heading</h> That's the point. The element is meant to 'group h*'. The fact that 'hgroup' with only text-node children would be awkward, is actually a very good argument *against* renaming it. I don't understand why you want to rename it.