Al Sparber wrote: > The problem is with the standard. If one gets too hung up on semantic markup > then there is the risk of bending the logical or implied semantics of an > element to suit ones project. I submit that in the absence of a perfectly > specific semantically correct element for a given task, a DIV becomes, by > default, the logical choice.
It's not by default at all - it's by design: a DIV is exactly the correct element to use when you want to divide a document into divisions or sections. > The world, and everything in it, is a list. Ordered or unordered? I guess it depends on your faith or lack of it. Maybe a definition list for the platonists out there. (And I though it was all waves and particles :) James Pickering wrote: > Also see the W3C HTML 4.01 Specification: > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#edef-DIV I've read it - see the last link in my last post, where I pointed out the progression of the DIV element in the various HTML specs: 3.2: "used to structure HTML documents as a hierarchy of divisions" 4.01: "a generic mechanism for adding structure to documents" 5 (draft): "The div element represents nothing at all" Geoff ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
