Shame they didn't refer to it as grid-cell, grid-row and grid-column. At least then it wouldn't be so confusing given that so many of us have been around long enough to remember when tables were the only method for complex layouts.
Maybe they're just expecting that full and final adaptation won't completely occur until well after the rest of us old-timers have retired. ;) -----Original Message----- From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Bobby Jack Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:07 PM To: css-d Subject: Re: [css-d] Vertical Align Theory --- On Thu, 4/23/09, Jack Blankenships <learningcssindet...@gmail.com> wrote: > The idea that using display: table-cell does not seem to be any more > semantically correct than simply placing the element in a table cell ... By definition, CSS declarations are NOT semantic but simply describe the visual rendering of associated markup. There should probably be a less semantically-inclined value than "table-cell" available, to enforce the separation between style and content, but that doesn't mean that separation is not already present. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
