On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 18:46 +0000, usuario wrote: > [Had problems sending my mails to the list, resending message] > > Some of you may be questioning why a wrapper element if it has not > semantics, the thing is, It DO have semantics. > > Wrapper: > a container element whose solely purpose is to isolate flow content for > visually appealing purposes. It it usually used for applying margin, padding > to inner elements, and dimensionally separating them from its real parent. > > *example, consider:* > > <header> > <div class="wrapper"> > <h1>Header 1</h1> > <p>this content is centered because margin: 0 auto is applied to > parent of div.wraper element</p> > I have always worked, I'm almost standard, sometimes people don't > call me wraper but 'container' or 'content' instead > </div> > </header> > > *Against:* > > <header> > <wrapper> > <h1>Header 1</h1> > <p>this content is centered because margin: 0 auto is applied to > parent of wrapper element</p> > I think I'm more semantic because I'm specifically designed for this > task, and I do it very well. What do you think? > </wrapper> > </header> > > Moreover. > > > Why not borrow the <g> from SVG (meaning "to group together" -- the > > semantics may be a bit more accessible in some cross-linguistic sense than > > <wrap>, particularly because of the silent "w" in "wrap" which throws a lot > > of folks for a loop)? > > > > Don't know if that's the solution, i just don't discard it. > > > > <div> carries no semantic meaning. * If you are using it for such, the > > semantic is purely internal to your application*, and thus doesn't > > carry the common meaning of "semantics" as used on the web. > > > > We have no problems with <div> definition. But i think you are not right in > your statement. > Answer this, Are wrappers purely internal to my(of mine) application? that's > a capitalized lie, just think on it. Most applications use a wrapper-like > div. You had, and i don't know you. > > We have to start deciding what do we want from html5, at what degree do we > want a more semantic web? why just <header>, why just <footer>. > > I can assure you the world was fine with <div id="header">, but so, why > <header> was created for? It was created because being so widely used, > somebody believed it was *more semantic* to convert it into an element. > > <div> is the wrapper element. That's its entire purpose for living. ^_^ > > > > <div> was not creating for wrapping things, but for contain them. When you > wrap something, you are giving it a different implicit meaning to that > wrapper div.
By it's very nature a <div> tag is a wrapper already. Your above code could be written as: <header> <div> <h1>Header 1</h1> <p>this content is centered because margin: 0 auto is applied to parent of div.wraper element</p> I have always worked, I'm almost standard, sometimes people don't call me wraper but 'container' or 'content' instead </div> </header> And the CSS used to reference the elements would be header div{/* css here */} header div h1{/* css here */} header div p{/* css here */} Your proposed wrapper serves no semantic purpose other than grouping the H1 and p tags together, but if they are the only siblings of any element that is already happening, there's no need to call the element a wrapper, it is one anyway. I don't understand the difference in your context of wrapper and container, but it seems to me one is a synonym for the other. -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk