Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
On 7 Sep 2006, at 12:11, Designer wrote: Elliot Schoemaker wrote: [snipped] Has this become a philosophical discussion yet? I quite like the idea of such a topic. - Elliot OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For example, many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to put this at the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests that 'header' is presentational/positional. So, what we need is a summary of useful 'box-names' which are semantically sound, but which don't actually mean anything! I'm calling this the 'standards contradiction syndrome'. :-) I've used "branding" as the ID of a container for the company name and logo. Although the design I was implementing displayed it as a header, I got a virtuous feeling of semantic purity from avoiding tying that fact into my markup :-) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
Designer wrote: Elliot Schoemaker wrote: [snipped] Has this become a philosophical discussion yet? I quite like the idea of such a topic. - Elliot OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For example, many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to put this at the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests that 'header' is presentational/positional. So, what we need is a summary of useful 'box-names' which are semantically sound, but which don't actually mean anything! I'm calling this the 'standards contradiction syndrome'. :-) Doug Bowman talked [almost] lucidly about this at Webstock (recordings are here http://www.webstock.org.nz/recordings.php) - I thought it was worth listening to, even though Doug admitted his thinking was still only forming on the subject. cheers mark *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
On 9/7/06, Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Elliot Schoemaker wrote: [snipped] > > Has this become a philosophical discussion yet? I quite like the idea > of such a topic. > > - Elliot > OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For example, many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to put this at the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests that 'header' is presentational/positional. So, what we need is a summary of useful 'box-names' which are semantically sound, but which don't actually mean anything! I'm calling this the 'standards contradiction syndrome'. :-) Actually, looking back over my last few projects, I've used #header, #branding, and a number of similar descriptive articles. They all seemed communicative of their purpose at the time; right now I'm interested in being a tad retrospective and figuring out what drove me to name these elements as such. I'll do this tomorrow, as I've had a few Jamesons right now and I'm looking forward to bed. BTW, to comment on your example: I stated before that I name based on 'what', not 'where'. So the header, being branding, site name etc., would still be that element, no matter where it is. Does that still make it the header, despite being placed at the bottom of a page? Is that a condundrum or am I driving everyone crazy? Elliot *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
Designer wrote: OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For example, many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to put this at the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests that 'header' is presentational/positional. Well, I regularly put parts of what end up as visual header, below everything else in the source-code. Wonder what I should call that "thing" now :-) I'm calling this the 'standards contradiction syndrome'. :-) Indeed, but quite interesting. Guess I like problems that have no clear solutions. Maybe it'll clear up one day. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
Designer wrote: OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For example, many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to put this at the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests that 'header' is presentational/positional. So, what we need is a summary of useful 'box-names' which are semantically sound, but which don't actually mean anything! I'm calling this the 'standards contradiction syndrome'. :-) Hmmm... I think we could take this too far. if html contains head and body, why cant body contain header, content and footer yes they are positional. but there has to be some structural semantics as well surely? (we accept that head comes before body...) we also accept thead tbody and tfoot, for tables and they have rules as to what follows what. maybe we should be pressing for page subdivision as a standard, rather than trying to make up new names for what goes at the top, middle and bottom of the page... ;o) -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
I always call the group of elements on the top of the page #header, but I don't interpret it as a "positional" name at all. I believe that the header of a document, whatever it is, groups important information of the same kind. We can find on the header of a document, for example, the name of the company - or person, the main title of the document, important transversal information that helps in reading this document. So now, where - or why - can we put this group of content other than in the beginning of the doc? Why should somebody want to put the company logo at the bottom of the page? The problem here is to understand the role of a document header, imh. Angela -Message d'origine- De : listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Gunlaug Sørtun Envoyé : jeudi 7 septembre 2006 13:43 À : wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Objet : Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line)) Designer wrote: > OK, so how far do we take this thinking on semantics etc. For > example, many people use a div called 'header'. Suppose I decide to > put this at the bottom?!!! Taking this to the extreme, it suggests > that 'header' is presentational/positional. Well, I regularly put parts of what end up as visual header, below everything else in the source-code. Wonder what I should call that "thing" now :-) > I'm calling this the 'standards contradiction syndrome'. :-) Indeed, but quite interesting. Guess I like problems that have no clear solutions. Maybe it'll clear up one day. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
Tony Crockford wrote: Hmmm... I think we could take this too far. if html contains head and body, why cant body contain header, content and footer yes they are positional. but there has to be some structural semantics as well surely? (we accept that head comes before body...) we also accept thead tbody and tfoot, for tables and they have rules as to what follows what. maybe we should be pressing for page subdivision as a standard, rather than trying to make up new names for what goes at the top, middle and bottom of the page... ;o) I agree. The thing is, if top, middle and bottom are OK, surely left and right are too? Where do you draw the line? (my own view is that they probably are OK - like Patrick said, pragmatism is the order of the day here, surely?) -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
Designer wrote: I agree. The thing is, if top, middle and bottom are OK, surely left and right are too? Where do you draw the line? (my own view is that they probably are OK - like Patrick said, pragmatism is the order of the day here, surely?) I think so... until we get a algorithm built into CSS and Browsers that says "place this image in the container so that the text flows around it with the least orphaned words" then we're going to have to make choices about should it float left or right and whilst I think left and right are *wrong* as class names I can't think of a way to differentiate classes for image placement that make any long term maintainable sense. the argument for semantic class names can be used to argue for left and right in this case - e.g calling something p.red now means headaches for maintenance in the future when p.red is now green, but creating img.typea and img.typeb is just as much a nightmare if you forget which type floats which way... Pragmatism rules. I want my CSS to be flexible, meaningful and written so I can read it like a story (preferably without a translation guide...) likewise the (x)html should make sense too, so when I look at the code and the CSS in an editor I can picture what it *should* appear like. ;o) -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Semantics - (was : class names and IDs (which was p:first-line))
On 7/09/2006, at 11:11 PM, Designer wrote: So, what we need is a summary of useful 'box-names' which are semantically sound, but which don't actually mean anything! I've always borrowed from the print world: #masthead, #sidebar, #navigation (or #nav), #main (or #main-content), #search and #footer. If I need wrappers then these are #page, #pagewrap, or #wrapper. Anything more specific, image replacements or suchlike, get a short iterated id (#i1, #i2 etc) Class names usually refer to function, though I probably could do better: .hide, .access, .floatleft, .floatright, .current. kind regards Terrence Wood *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
