On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 17:08:38 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:49:01PM +0200, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Monday, 16 September 2013 at 16:44:56 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu
wrote:
>I don't find disagreement with what I said.
>[...]
>Nice, but what I see here is "different", not "better".
I think we may be disagreeing regarding different things.
>>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.
I refer to my original argument about how this is
borderline-nitpicking. I'd like to add, however, that
user-agents
such as screen readers might behave better when using
appropriate
HTML tags.
I can attest to that. I'm on another mailing list where one of
the list
members is sight-impaired, and she complains about how some
websites
(i.e. those that suffer from heavy divitis and spanitis) simply
can't be
read in any sane way by the screen reader. Using built-in
semantic tags
like <dl> can make a world of difference for these users, since
the
screen reader has no idea what class="d_decl" means, but it
*does* know
what <dl> means. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
Haven't followed the thread closely but one thing I've missed
when trying to define a nicer stylesheet is something more
specific that "d_decl".
d_decl is used for all declarations which means that you cannot
style enums, templates, functions etc. differently in the docs.
It would be nice to have an additional class added to the class
attribute. For example: class="d_decl d_enum" or class="d_decl
d_template".
/Jonas
