Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > <...> >> But if there is a problem with these ephemeral and hard-to-define >> elements, standardistas should use their sense of order and clear >> markup to help integrate these elements - attempting to remove them >> is futile, if anything it'll just result in them being used or >> simulated badly. > > So, what's so bad with separators "simulated" with CSS. > Con: you won't have them with CSS off. > Pro: cleaner code, more flexibility. > (http://rimantas.com/bits/hr/nohr.html was a quick example I made in > May 2005, when similar discussion is going on some of w3 mailing > list). > > I doubt that anybody is arguing against the visual separator per se. > The way it comes to life is another matter. > > Regards, > Rimantas
You are completely missing the point. It needs to be *MORE* than just visual for Accessibility reasons. While an <hr /> may not have any true semantic meaning (in a strict sense), it is structural none-the-less; it indicates a clean break between what proceeds it and what follows it. This "concept" is not hard to understand - it is neither ephemeral nor hard-to-define. However, it renders horribly in today's ultra-cool graphic interface designs, and so designers/developers shun it. And so the "way it comes to life" *is* important - it should be integral to the source code. The way it visually renders... Now that's where there is room for improvement. Just another perspective and $0.002 worth of opinion JF ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
