Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
2005/9/9, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... Thus, we want our markup to have as much information as possible, so that every block level element has a title, every object has its alternative content, every acronym has its definition, etc. ... No, I don't want to have as much information as possible, I only want relevant and necessary information. Ending up in wordletter char=tt/letterletter char=hi/letterletter char=ii/letterletter char=ss/letter/word does not impress me at all. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
I don't think you know what I'm talking about. The information is not for humans... obviously. Accessibility isn't just about people. The extra information is for, as I already stated, computing devices that parse the data. In XML, you really do have that much information every single item is surrounded by unique tags that indicate exactly what it is. If information is not going to be used by humans at the end of the road - ditch it. Let me say it again for the reading impaired: in XML, every single block-level item is surrounded by unique tags that indicate exactly what it is. XML gives you means to do that, but that does not imply that every single block-level item is marked up. And why block level items are so special? I can wrap-up in the tags whatever I want to. Or I can have whole article stuffed into single something.../something And the whole point of X-HTML is to make HTML more like XML. XHTML _is_ XML... talk XML looking like HTML. So that when you send an HTML document to a non-human reader, one that can't understand text, it can still tell what each element is supposed to be, by how you classified and titled and id'ed it. How is it going to understand titles and id's if it does not understand text? It is good to have titles and ids if they will be used for something meaningful - search, tagging, transformations etc. Maybe thinking from the computing end is easier for me because I'm an electrical engineer. Just think of it this way... computer's don't know english. So they know nothing, what given tag means. And computers only process information, the ultimate consumer is a human being Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
We're still not on the same page. May I ask what your experience is with computers?On 9/9/05, Rimantas Liubertas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I don't think you know what I'm talking about. The information is not for humans... obviously. Accessibility isn't just about people. The extra information is for, as I already stated, computing devices that parse the data. In XML, you really do have that much information every single item is surrounded by unique tags that indicate exactly what it is.If information is not going to be used by humans at the end of theroad - ditch it.Let me say it again for the reading impaired: in XML, every single block-level item is surrounded by unique tags that indicate exactly what it is.XML gives you means to do that, but that does not imply that everysingle block-level itemis marked up. And why block level items are so special? I can wrap-up in the tags whatever I want to. Or I can have whole article stuffedinto single something.../somethingAnd the whole point of X-HTML is to make HTML more like XML.XHTML _is_ XML... talk XML looking like HTML. So that when you send an HTML document to a non-human reader, one that can't understand text, it can still tell what each element is supposed to be, by how you classified and titled and id'ed it. How is it going to understand titles and id's if it does not understand text?It is good to have titles and ids if they will be used for somethingmeaningful - search,tagging, transformations etc. Maybe thinking from the computing end is easier for me because I'm an electrical engineer. Just think of it this way... computer's don't know english.So they know nothing, what given tag means. And computers only process information, theultimate consumer is a human beingRegards,Rimantas--http://rimantas.com/.**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
2005/9/9, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We're still not on the same page. May I ask what your experience is with computers? 15 years of programming experience, nine years of professional web development work, including work on internet banking application. And that involves xml and xsl too ;) On the other hand I do not see how is this relevant. My point is very simple: Because you CAN (so something) does not mean you SHOULD. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
2005/9/9, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Because you CAN (so something) does not mean you SHOULD. Oh, that should be do something. And maybe it is better to go off list if there is something to discuss? I really do not want to hijack this list attention with irrelevant info... Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
I might be speaking Greek, I don't know. It doesn't really matter anyway, I'm bored of this discussion, especially stating the obvious and being misunderstood. I'm just speaking from experience, working at the hardware level, but I understand it's hard to think from that angle, to understand how information is used. It really doesn't matter, it's where XHTML is headed, when it gets there you'll understand what I was saying. I'm off to another thread. Cheers.
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Drake, Ted C. wrote: Now, the goal of a medium to advanced CSS-based programmer is to find the elegant balance of essential divs, spans, ids and classes. Consider it a challenge. Indeedy. I cringe, however, when I see DIVs where they're not necessary. ... if you already have a perfectly good block level element, don't wrap it in a generic div unless you have a very good reason for it. I, too, consider it a challenge (one that I cheerfully pursue without reason or any outside encouragement, BTW) to strip out all unnecessary markup, and style the most basic element possible. I regard it as a fun and ever-changing puzzle. So that's my stance, but I'd like to float a counter-argument to see if it holds up: Eschewing markup that is not needed today is equivalent to adding presentational decisions to the markup for tomorrow. Does the argument hold water? Is the logical conclusion of truly semantic markup that all meaning of a document should be embedded in tags, including semantically empty tags that serve only to group and divide content, whether those elements are required for the current design or not, such that they may provide hooks for future presentation considerations? Ted had mentioned the example of navigation that is fully expressed as a list today may instead contain a list and other elements tomorrow (or conversely, on some pages it is only a list, on others it is a list plus headings, but on all pages it is the same navigation, etc.). In addition to divs and spans, this would also require giving all elements an id and most would have multiple classes. (Surely this would add excessive bulk and require excessive planning; let's ignore the practicality of download and work-weeks for a moment as we chase an ideal.) Is there a point where stripping things out, simply because your current visual design is still possible without the excess, means that you are stripping away presentational abilities and embedding that presentational decision in the markup instead of the CSS? In essence, could divitis/classitis be not only the scourge of the beginning standards-coder, but also an enlightened ideal we may be avoiding due to current download concerns? I think this discussion is highly theoretical, but can lead directly to a rationally-derived process for marking up documents such that we truly separate content from presentation. Although I mention an idealized goal, I recognize that reality is likely to intrude. I also recognize that there may be critical holes; that's why I'd like to hear other opinions. I'm also unlikely to give up my habit of trying to slim things down to the final ounce possible. It's too fun. :) -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
Ted had mentioned the example of navigation that is fully expressed as a list today may instead contain a list and other elements tomorrow (or conversely, on some pages it is only a list, on others it is a list plus headings, but on all pages it is the same navigation, etc.). But at what point does it become too much? Wrapping the sidebar in a div for those reasons may seem OK. But then why not wrap each list item in a div too, incase it needs two background images in the future? To me, divs that aren't actively and logically grouping items together (usually with a header, see section), are presentational elements*, as their only purpose is for applying style. I'm also unlikely to give up my habit of trying to slim things down to the final ounce possible. Good to know I'm not alone. * I know technically they're not presentational elements, so no point in arguing with me if you disagree.
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
... Eschewing markup that is not needed today is equivalent to adding presentational decisions to the markup for tomorrow. ... Only if tomorrow we won't have browsers with advanced CSS support (talk multiple backgrounds). Oh, we have these today... Sure, IE is here to stay for a long time, but on the other hand... to the hell with bad browsers? And the last point: today I mostly deal with sites assembled from come blocks. I love to have these blocks as simple as possible. This way tomorrow I can easily make them more complicated by adding some extra divs, but I see no point of doing it today without any need. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
On Sep 8, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Eschewing markup that is not needed today is equivalent to
adding presentational decisions to the markup for tomorrow.
Only if tomorrow we won't have browsers with advanced CSS support
(talk
multiple backgrounds).
I think my point was missed. Treating tags as hooks on which to hang
your design implies that if you want hooks for all possible designs
(e.g., you are separating presentation from your markup), then you
need to add a lot of hooks that are not needed for *this* design.
For example, CSS3 has a means to move content from one area to
another -- not positioning, in layout terms, nor moved in the DOM
tree, but moved in the document flow. For example you can duplicate
all the headings in your document (h1:before { content:contents; }),
and place the duplicates up front in a table of contents that the
rest of the document recognizes as being in the flow. Or footnotes
can be inline, right next to the content they refer to, but then
placed last in the document, one after the other, with self-numbering
precursors like an ordered list.
But how can you use this future technique of CSS to present your
existing document differently if you didn't put in some empty (and
currently worthless) hooks in the first place? Therefore, by *not*
putting those hooks in, are you essentially making presentation
decisions?
Even though I'd like to see if someone picks this idea up and can
help argue the for/against, because I think it's a worthwhile
discussion, I don't think that reality will play nicely with the
idealized end result of this line of thinking. I think it's far more
likely that people will continue to adopt XML-compatible XHTML-like
documents, which then they can convert in the future via XSLT to have
the markup-based hooks needed for future presentational concerns. In
essence, I think I believe that separating presentation from markup
is ultimately unachievable in the purest sense of totality, but the
consequence of striving to achieve it is a Good Thing(tm).
--
Ben Curtis : webwright
bivia : a personal web studio
http://www.bivia.com
v: (818) 507-6613
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
Eschewing markup that is not needed today is equivalent toadding presentational decisions to the markup for tomorrow.
Only if tomorrow we won't have browsers with advanced CSS support (talk multiple backgrounds).
Isn't the purpose of semantic markup supposed to be to make your markup
understandable regardless of the media, i.e., as close to an xml
document as possible, where you can tell what each item is simply by
looking at the enclosing tags? Thus, we want our markup to have as much
information as possible, so that every block level element has a title,
every object has its alternative content, every acronym has its
definition, etc.
So then, what CSS should do, and already does, in some ways, is control
how our markup is handled by different medias, such that we can hide
certain things that wouldn't be helpful to a printed document or a
screen reader.
What I'm getting at is this:
The ideal would be that your markup can have divitis, but when parsed
by a screen reader or a printing device or something else, you tell it
something along the lines of:
div {
visibilty:hidden;
}
Thus, the following markup for a page viewed on a screen:
*div class=outside
*div class=inside
*div class=nav
*ul title=nav...*/ul
*div
*div class=content
*p title=article...*/p
*/div
*/div
*/div
becomes the following markup to an RSS reader, a screen reader, a printer, a braille pad, an e-mail, etc.
*ul title=nav...*/ul
*p title=article...*/p
This, I think, is where CSS is headed... complete control over how
markup gets parsed/displayed, so you can have divitis and still have
accessibility/semantics.
Re: [WSG] divitis - a worthy goal?
On 9/9/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ideal would be that your markup can have divitis, but when parsed by a
screen reader or a printing device or something else, you tell it something
along the lines of:
div {
visibilty:hidden;
}
That will hide all child elements of the div's too... not what you're after.
You would also want to add this:
div * {
visibility:visible;
}
Andrew
http://leftjustified.net/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
