Designer wrote:
OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For example,
many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to put this at
the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests that 'header' is
presentational/positional.
So, what we need is a summary of useful 'box-names' which are
semantically sound, but which don't actually mean anything!
I'm calling this the 'standards contradiction syndrome'. :-)
Hmmm...
I think we could take this too far.
if html contains head and body, why cant body contain header, content
and footer
yes they are positional.
but there has to be some structural semantics as well surely? (we
accept that head comes before body...)
we also accept thead tbody and tfoot, for tables and they have rules as
to what follows what.
maybe we should be pressing for page subdivision as a standard, rather
than trying to make up new names for what goes at the top, middle and
bottom of the page...
;o)
--
Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/
Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F
Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
