"Adam Ruppe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> I'm firmly in the camp that HTML *is* presentation. > > The problem here is two things can look the same, but should be > treated differently by post-processing programs. > > For example, lists of members. The presentational style code in > std.ddoc now generates this kind of thing: > > <dl> > <dt>enum Foo</dt> > <dd><dl> > <dt>member1</dt> > </dl></dd> > > <dt>struct Bar</dt> > blah blah blah > </dl> > > Now, suppose you want to do a post-processor of some sort to grab all > enums. It's more painful than it has to be - instead of using the > html structure, you've gotta scan the inner text too for the keywords. > > > You might want them to look the same, but it's still sometimes helpful > to be able to differentiate them by some kind of metadata. > > > I'm not really against having both presentational and semantic > data in the html, since the post-processor can always strip out > stuff it doesn't care about. > > But, if that semantic stuff isn't present, it causes pain for > other scenarios down the line. (Contrast to missing presentational > stuff, which can be fairly easily regenerated with rich enough > semantics.) > > > When I get around to updating std.ddoc, I'll have it looking almost > the same except I'd add class="struct" and class="enum" to the > list macros too.
Yea, I see. That all makes sense.
