> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [WSG] semantics : was-[HR tag and Semantics]
>
<snip>
> > <div class="grouping">
> > <p></p>
> > <p></p>
> > <p></p>
> > </div>
> > <div class="grouping">
> > <p></p>
> > </div>
> >
> > .grouping + .grouping:before{content: "[separator]"}
> >
> > This is better than Rob's and your examples because it
> doesn't assume
> > the separator is incidental to the presence of other objects, which
> > cause some kind of separation anyway.
>
> In fact, that is exactly the use I think my example was indicating was
> a better idea - semantically. It's a bit more code, true. It's a bit
> more hassle, true. It's a lot more descriptive semantically.
No, no, no! A DIV is semantically neutral, ie has no meaning
whatsoever. The addition of a class name does not change that. So how
can a pair of DIV's have more meaning than a specific HTML element?
Even if you could answer that correctly, the above example is completely
inaccessible, whereas a distinct element used correctly cannot possible
be more accessible.
Regards,
Mike
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
