Rob,
I took Barney's point to be "if these people have ever swallowed their
own medicine and then developed a site that satisfies anyone"
OK! HR might be about markup not semantics and you have never had to
use it, I am amazed that presentation has no importance at all and go
back to Barney's comment. HR can also says how far above and below text
will flow. It can end text after a floated element with clear:both. It
is really useful for presentation for humans to divide information into
sections. I don't give a rats if bots attach no meaning to it.
Tim
On 06/02/2007, at 9:38 PM, Rob Kirton wrote:
Barney
I can't recall ever finding the need to use an <hr> and never normally
consider doing so. It is purely presentational, i.e. it draws a line
across a page, nothing more, nothing less. It conveys nothing about
what is above, below or indeed why indeed we have drawn a line.
The major point of semantics is so that documents can be analysed by
search engines, allowing us to reference later and obtain information
(hopefully) with meaning. I realise HTML is never going to fully
satisfy that, though I can't see us all recording data as RDF tuples
full time in the near future.
I suspect you will find that no meaning is ever attached to a <br> by
a search engine, the only meaning that is attached to it, is one which
has been made in the mind of the person who views the page, which is
purely presentational and has nothing whatsoever to do with semantics
.
regards
- Rob
On 06/02/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The <section> actually carries semantic weight, and is meant to be
> used carefully... the <div> does not.
>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-
structural.html#edef_structural_section
>
> Then again, XHTML 2 does have a <separator> element which is just
like
> <hr>...
>
>
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-
structural.html#edef_structural_separator
>
> But you will notice that XHTML 2 has both <div> and <section>, and
> <div> is weightless while <separator> is not.
I am intrigued by this. There are those who believe HR is completely
obsolete /on a semantic level/ because, as we all supposedly know, a
document's semantic structure is divided entirely by headings. I would
like to see if these people have ever swallowed their own medicine and
then developed a site that satisfies anyone.
Furthermore, surely these people should be horrified at the idea of
sections and separators?
Occasionally I get tempted to abide by these bizarre rules and create
my
heading minefield of a document that will satisfy these monsters when
they switch to the ultimate view-source browsing experience, but use a
display:none class to maintain readability by human beings with an
existing culture of literature to consider.
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
