> Thierry wrote (in the linked article, not his post): > > DIVs are meaningless and cannot represent the structure of a document > > Really? > According to the HTML 3.2 spec, where they first appear: > "DIV elements can be used to structure HTML documents as a hierarchy of > divisions." > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#div
Hi Geoff, When using DIV, what translate that "hierarchy"? Take this page for example: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/css-layout/how-to/step-1.asp Using Lists, you get this: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/css-layout/how-to/step-2.asp Forget the visual display, just look at the fact that UAs do not treat DIVs in any special way. Something they do with lists, be it Visual Browsers or Screen Readers. This may not make Lists better for construct, but it should show that the div element represents nothing at all (as it says in one of the 2 links you posted). Because if we are talking "hierarchy" and semantics, I think "something" should "reveal" the relationship between these elements. In the above example, what are the 2 DIVs used as wrappers (instead of the OLs) if they are not just structural hacks? And what about: <div class="clearIt"></a> How semantic is that? At least with the list construct the wrappers *are* semantic. Anyway, as I said in my article, using OLs instead of DIVs started almost as a joke (and if you've read that article you've noted that I do not advocate their use for construct), but the arguments I hear about DIVs being more semantics than Lists to hold the main sections of a web page let me think that the whole thing may be not that crazy :-) -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
