> The suggestion is that <h> would solve this, as browsers would implement it & do the right thing in terms of the accessibility tree.

> This is a common mistake in standards discussion - a mistake I've made many times before. You cannot compare the current state of things, beholden to reality, with a utopian implementation of some currently non-existent thing.

Ugh, yes, this happens so often: something is implemented badly, so we propose to add the same thing again under a different name and with subtle differences, assuming it'll be implemented right this time.

If possible, it's better to try and get the implementations fixed. That may not even require changes to the standard.