> Lucien Stals > For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as "The fieldset > element draws a box around its containing elements." And that's the > complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. > > I leave it to others to debate the authority of the w3schools > site, and > it's a debate worth having.
No need to debate it...w3schools is a cr*ppy resource, full stop. The definition of theirs that you quoted above is a case in point...they define an element by its visual effect? I haven't checked the site, can't be bothered, but I wouldn't be surprised if for <blockquote> they say "it indents text"... > But I am a pragmatic > coder and if > I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form > controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. Sure a DIV > would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the > unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no > semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. "The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for *adding structure* to documents." Divining hidden meaning from the HTML specifications, conveniently ignoring certain parts of the descriptions, and then intimating "I'm sure this is what the W3C *meant* to say" is the refuge of...? P ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor External Relations Division University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
