On 1/26/06, Miika Mäkinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian, that was my point... small atleast *sounds* presentational
(thought it could indicate text that is less important) and that was why I
wasn't happy to see it's included in HTML5...
small may sound presentational because that's what it is in HTML4.
But in HTML5 it refers to 'the small print' of a document, which is an
entirely different use of text from a standard paragraph.
The problem with that is that it *does* sound presentational and that people
will just assume that
Nic wrote:
What the WHATWG are doing which I think is clever, is they're reusing
existing, meaningless presentational elements where they can. If I
remember correctly, i has been re-specified too.
Quite the contrary, it's asking for problems.
Yes, I agree. Reusing presentational elements
How long have i and b been deprecated?
They're not deprecated.
Well, I'll be darned!
I've been using em and strong for so long I'd come to believe i and
b were deprecated...
Thanks Lachlan, for setting me straight.
I still won't use them though ;)
rantAnd on a side rant, could people
On 1/28/06, Ben Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's all
about separating _documents_ into component parts. There's nothing
presentational about them: You have headers on letters, official
documents and all sorts, thus there's now an element to identify that
section of a document. Same for a
Christian Montoya wrote:
I think the W3C realized that a long time ago, and I think WhatWG will
go at this for a couple more years and say, hey, this html thing just
can't define everything, we need a technology that can support
applications, one that allows developers to define their own
Geoff Deering wrote:
Do others feel there are *elements* of presentation creeping back into
the structure?
Absolutely, header and footer elements, to my mind, break the
semantics of separating the presentation from content. Once you say
this element represents the footer for the section it
On 1/25/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could have:
html
head/head
body
header/header
nav/nav
article/article
aside/aside
footer/footer
/body
/html
If you are going to
More than headers and footers I was a bit worrried seeing an element named small in the list... though actually there might be idea in adding something that gives negative weight, like an opposites of em and strong
unimportant or note maybe?On 1/26/06, Peter Asquith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff
At 11:52 PM 1/25/2006, Geoff Deering wrote:
header/header
nav/nav
article/article
aside/aside
footer/footer
Do others feel there are *elements* of presentation creeping back
into the structure?
...
The second
On 1/26/06, Miika Mäkinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More than headers and footers I was a bit worrried seeing an element named
small in the list... though actually there might be idea in adding
something that gives negative weight, like an opposites of em and strong
unimportant or note maybe?
Christian, that was my point... small atleast *sounds* presentational (thought it could indicate text that is less important) and that was why I wasn't happy to see it's included in HTML5...
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-smallOn 1/26/06, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Asquith wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
Do others feel there are *elements* of presentation creeping back
into the structure?
Absolutely, header and footer elements, to my mind, break the
semantics of separating the presentation from content. Once you say
this element represents the
Christian Montoya wrote:
If you are going to make a tag for every element on the page you might
as well just serve an xml document with a stylesheet. I assume
everyone knows this can be done, yes? It's not like we are talking
about something new.
I'd be really interested in knowing how
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 1/25/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could have:
html
head/head
body
header/header
nav/nav
article/article
aside/aside
footer/footer
/body
/html
If
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 1/25/06, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We could have:
html
head/head
body
header/header
nav/nav
article/article
aside/aside
footer/footer
On 1/26/06, Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
If you are going to make a tag for every element on the page you might
as well just serve an xml document with a stylesheet. I assume
everyone knows this can be done, yes? It's not like we are talking
about something new.
I just stumbled upon this: http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html
Based on commonly used classes and such, they are suggesting new html
markup.
For example, they mention that footer is used a lot, and are thus
suggesting a footertag/footer.
On 1/25/06, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just stumbled upon this: http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html
Based on commonly used classes and such, they are suggesting new html
markup.
For example, they mention that footer is used a lot, and are thus
suggesting a
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 1/25/06, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, they mention that footer is used a lot, and are thus
suggesting a footertag/footer.
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-footer
Thoughts?
My thought: they have no idea how hard it is to
On 1/25/06, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 1/25/06, Brian Cummiskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, they mention that footer is used a lot, and are thus
suggesting a footertag/footer.
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-footer
I like the idea of the nav and the aside elements:
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-nav
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-aside
So instead of:
html
head/head
body
div id=header/div
div id=nav/div
Geoff Pack wrote:
I like the idea of the nav and the aside elements:
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-nav
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-aside
So instead of:
html
head/head
body
div id=header/div
div
23 matches
Mail list logo
