> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean > 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.
On 07/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
A separator indicates there are groupings to separate. A grouping by default is separate from other groupings. A separator tells you that content on one side is distinct from content on the other side, but it doesn't tell you which parts of the contents on either side it's specifying the separation for. Therefore, div holds more semantic value - it not only provides the separation, it specifies exactly the span of one of the groupings.
Even if you could answer that correctly, the above example is completely inaccessible, whereas a distinct element used correctly cannot possible be more accessible.
How is an element any more accessible (theoretically of course, considering how bad the support situation for generated content and styling of pseudo elements is) than a pseudo element? If you want your separator, you can have it in the form of an ::after or ::before styling. And the separator doesn't have the ability to describe the groupings in any way. -- David "liorean" Andersson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
