I know that this topic has dragged on a bit, but I am very interested in
the development of 'our' language and the implications of all the things
being discussed.
Interestingly, I note the proposition that hr is to be replaced with
separator in future versions of xhtml (2) :
{
hr Replaced
On 07/02/07, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel very restricted by the use of div (even with a descriptive
identifier or class) because div means very little. I'm glad we have
such things as p (and the rest!) because they make code easier to read.
Well, the thing with a separator is, it
@liorean:
We're getting somewhere! You suggest that separators are an aberration,
something inherently ambiguous (and this ambiguity is not desired) and
we should use this opportunity to get rid of it.
The problem, again (if I may be so bold), is that you don't actually
believe the
On 07/02/07, Jens Brueckmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/02/07, liorean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But if you instead mark up each grouping with the appropriate semantical
element, then you get the separation with the boundary.
I do question this. The boundary is void, nothing, whereas a
-Original Message-
From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:47 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] semantics : was-[HR tag and Semantics]
snip
div class=grouping
p/p
p/p
[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?
I think what liorean means by more semantic is that the meaning of
Mike,
Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 3:20:25 PM, you wrote:
Yes a DIV is semantically neutral, but it has a structural meaning.
And HR doesn't have a semantic meaning either, it's just visual with a
structural implication.
mbbc Would you care to back that up by explaining what 'structural
Martin Heiden wrote:
I admit that the HR is an expression of the fact that something is
finished, but I doubt that this as easy to understand as some text.
Please don't admit this, it's not true. Everybody from the anti-HR camp
seems to be saying Why create an object to signify an end, when
liorean wrote:
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?
The question half answers itself - one is real, the other pseudo (Def:
being apparently
Oh dear god, can someone please stick a fork in this thread... it's long
past done.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL
10 matches
Mail list logo
