On 07/02/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
liorean wrote:
> You needn't necessarily wrap both groupings, if either of them was
> weak and the other strong. Also, the separation is at boundaries.
> Whether it's :after of :before matters not.
This is the thi
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of liorean
> In fact, that is exactly the use I think my example was indicating was
> a better idea - semantically. It's a bit more code, true. It's a bit
> more hassle, true. It's a lot more descriptive semantically.
On 07/02/07
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
On 07/02/07, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@liorean:
We're getting somewhere! You suggest that separators are an aberration,
something inherently ambiguous (and this ambiguity is not desired) and
we should use this opportunity to get rid of it.
Not quite. I'm su
something that semantically fits better than "this
content is conceptually closer grouped than the surrounding content",
go ahead.
--
David "liorean" Andersson
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#sec_8.8.>
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#sec_8.4.>
Also IIRC the hr is just renamed to separator in XHTML2, it doesn't go
away entirely.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#sec_8.9.>
But that's just my system.
--
David "liorean" Andersson
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Shortest DTD-valid HTML 4.01 Strict document, with the root element being HTML:
However, you don't need to choose HTML as your root element. This
document is DTD-valid HTML4.01 Strict.
<>
--
David "li
ichever version that is. But XHTML2 has always
been a whole new technology trying to replace HTML. HTML5 is instead
an evolution, an upgrade, of an aging HTML specification.
Oh, and HTML5 will probably become a W3C specification, if HTML WG and
WhatWG cooperation works out:
http://www.w3.org/2
, that reason would be that the user agents present at
standardisation time did not prove to give sufficient support to using
the id attribute in the same function as the name attribute on a
elements - namely, as fragment identifiers.
--
David "liorean"
ntent
model with the id attribute. The name attribute and the id attribute
are supposed to share namespace. The name attribute IS deprecated on
these elements.
--
David "liorean" Andersson
http://liorean.web-graphics.com/>
***
11 matches
Mail list logo
