On 9/16/13 9:30 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 16:22:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[citation needed]
Sure, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_HTML
I don't find disagreement with what I said.
On the contrary, from what I've read in LaTeX and typography is that
you want to keep formatting semantics high level, e.g. "This is a
chapter title" as opposed to "this is heading text" or (worse) "this
is large text with large spacing".
Well, the big difference with TeX and HTML is that with *TeX, you
distribute the output, whereas with HTML, you distribute the source code
- which can be interpreted by user agents other than web browsers
rendering the page on a computer display.
<dl> is a definition list, which nicely fits
documenting a list of entities.
It is, but it seems to me the more specific "list of symbols
introduced" is better.
You could use both (<dl class="d_decl">) if you like.
I guess '<dl class="d_decl">' is one iota more specific than '<div
class="d_decl">' and would help if one wanted to view the HTML without
any accompanying CSS. I doubt this is a goal to pursue.
In this case the distinction is actually material because we have one
style file for both Phobos and the larger dlang.org, and we may want
to format regular <dd> differently from Phobos symbols description.
This seems to be a Good Thing (tm).
Good thing for that C in CSS! :) If you add a class to the <html> or
<body> tag (or any other tag that wraps all symbol definitions), which
only appears on Phobos documentation pages, you can create a CSS rule
that only applies to those pages. E.g.:
HTML:
<body class="library_dox">
...
<dd>
CSS:
.library_dox dd {
/* applies only to dd tags in library dox pages */
}
Nice, but what I see here is "different", not "better".
Andrei
