Why would it even work – charset only applies to the tag it is declared on – you can even use it to MIX character encodings inside a document (what it’s for) – putting it on a meta does absolutely NOTHING in browsers that don’t know 5, and many that allegedly do!
Now, if it was on a tag that wrapped some content… like say… HTML? Of course that wouldn’t work either since in HTML 4 (and browsers designed for it) the ONLY TAG that has the charset attribute is ANCHOR… which is why on a standalone tag like META where prior to HTML 5 there is no charset attribute there is no way that should/would/could or even does work… So unless you’re setting it in your HTTP header, you’re not gonna have much success with it.
The entire preceeding two paragraphs to the statement and everything I just said above?
You can have zero h1s and use section, header, article and footer. Or only one. Or half. Or all. It’s up to you.
AGAIN, you missed what I’m saying. I AGREE with what you just said – that does not conflict or preclude what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that IF you use numbered headings and IF you use those tags, they all become h1’s because the count gets reset every time you open one of those new tags.
So where you would have in HTML 4
<h1>Topmost title of which all other headings are subsections</h1>
<div id="content">
<div class="section">
<h2>Start of section 1</h2>
<p>Some text describing the subsection</p>
<div class="subSection">
<h3>Start of a subsection of section 1</h3>
<p>Some Text</p>
<!-- .subSection --></div>
<div class="subSection">
<h3>Start of a subsection of section 1</h3>
<p>Some Text</p>
<!-- .subSection --></div>
<!-- .section --></div>
<div class="section">
<h2>Start of section 2</h2>
<p>Some text describing the subsection</p>
<div class="subSection">
<h3>Start of a subsection of section 2</h3>
<p>Some Text</p>
<!-- .subSection --></div>
<div class="subSection">
<h3>Start of a subsection of section 2</h3>
<p>Some Text</p>
<!-- .subSection --></div>
<!-- .section --></div>
<!-- #content --></div>
With HTML 5 you end up with
<h1>Topmost title of which all other headings are subsections</h1>
<div id="content">
<section>
<h1>Start of section 1</h1>
<p>Some text describing the section</p>
<article>
<h1>Start of a subsection of section 1</h1>
<p>Some Text</p>
</article>
<article>
<h1>Start of a subsection of section 1</h1>
<p>Some Text</p>
</article>
</section>
<section>
<h1>Start of section 2</h1>
<p>Some text describing the section</p>
<article>
<h1>Start of a subsection of section 2</h1>
<p>Some Text</p>
</article>
<article>
<h1>Start of a subsection of section 2</h1>
<p>Some Text</p>
</article>
<!-- #content --></div>
I’m not saying you have to use them {endless string of frustrated expletives omitted} you {even nastier long string of expletives and personal insults about your family and level of education} 
Joking – <ducky>it’s called a sense of humor, you should try one, it’s nice!</ducky> – I’m saying that if for semantic reasons you are using headings, the presence of heading, section, footer, and article reset them all into being H1’s instead of maintaining the cascade that actually made numbered headings make SENSE… NOT that anyone actually bothered using them properly which is probably WHY HTML 5 took that route… at which point ditch the numbered heading tags alltogether as they no longer serve a purpose; Just use HEADER instead. Header vs. Heading – redundant pointless BULL.
You’re missing the point, by the rules of HTML 5, using lower order headings like you are supposed to in HTML 4 is as broken/nonsensical as skipping heading numbers and having multiple h1’s under the old specs! You cater to the older UA’s by using lower order numbers, you’re telling HTML 5 structure where to stick it – you use the rules for HTML 5 structure, you’re telling older UA’s where to stick it… All because most people are too malfing stupid to understand the numbered heading tags in the first place! Something so simple a 2nd grader could probably grasp it – but with people these days graduating high school with the equivalent of a fourth grade education circa 1980, I really shouldn’t be shocked by this.
I really don’t think you’ve grasped what I’m saying, that or you are being deliberately obtuse on this… Are you joking and I missed the joke?
