On 07/02/07, Jens Brueckmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07/02/07, liorean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But if you instead mark up each grouping with the appropriate semantical > element, then you get the separation with the boundary. I do question this. The boundary is void, nothing, whereas a specific element denoting a separation of two different sections is itsself part of the overall content.
Well, it could be a conclusion, and ending. Or for that matter a beginning, a clean break. Or the transition, if the boundary is fuzzy. If either of the first two, it should probably be part of the grouping it concludes or begins. If the third, I'm not sure there's any semantically fitting element. Maybe the transition itself should be a separate, short, grouping of it's own. In this case, the separator element is possibly even the best solution.
Monty Python's Flying Circus would certainly miss something if the words "And Now For Something Completely Different" did not exist. This phrase is actually a separator, it has meaning. I think the same applies to separators in markup.
Well, that is what I would call a transition. And you're right, it's a separator. But it's also content. It's definitely say it's not equivalent to an hr; the hr may be a separation semantically, but it isn't content. The problem of trying to fit a greyscale world - or maybe even hsla colour with gamma correction - into black and white. Markup always has the problem of trying to put semantics to well defined areas, excluding it outside those areas. -- David "liorean" Andersson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
