W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2006

Re: Search Engine CSS

From: Craig Francis <craig@synergycms.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 23:31:57 +0100
Message-Id: <7CB21CDA-9EE4-4CB7-80E9-6EC9037F5A61@synergycms.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

Thank you for reading my document, I really do appreciate it.

Although I think elements like the <nl> (navigation list) in XHTML 2  
and the <nav> block (grouping elements together) from WHATWG are  
defiantly the way to go.

I think that the "role" attribute will really help XHTML 2 cover most  
of the thoughts I had for the different CSS rules.

But I suppose it will be a waiting game for the spec's to be finished  
and the browsers to implement these features (are we hoping 10 years  
for IE?)

As to you your comments about using <div>'s, your absolutely right  
Philip, they are needed in a document, but I removed them to reduce  
the size of the example while trying to showing a tree like structure  
(parent and children relationships).

But this is now going off topic for the CSS mailing lists... so we  
should leave it there.

Thank you all for your comments, and perhaps we can return to the  
discussions on the future of CSS (I am still in favour of a version  
at rule for example)...

	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Mar/0215.html


Best Regards,
Craig





On 7 Jul 2006, at 12:09, Philip TAYLOR wrote:

>
> Having now has the time to read Craig's linked document
>
>> http://www.krang.org.uk/searchEngineCSS/
>
> as well as his original posting, I for one would like
> to add my support to his proposal, although I note that
> most have been dismissive of his suggestions, some even
> going so far as to suggest that CSS is totally inappropriate
> as a mechanism through which to accomplish his aims.
>
> What I suspect has been overlooked is his quite intentional
> use of new values for the "media" attribute, and in
> particular "spider" (though this could equally well be
> "robot", or whatever).  Once one allows new values for
> "media", the whole role of CSS takes on a new meaning,
> and I think that Craig may well be one of the few to
> identify this.
>
> My only concern with his ideas is really at the nit-picking
> level, where he adduces as evidence of the problem the
> following markup fragment :
>
>> 	<h1>Page Title</h1>
>> 		    <h2>Sub Section Title</h2>
>> 		        <p>...</p>
>> 		    <h2>Sub Section Title</h2>
>> 		        <p>...</p>
>> 		    <h2>Sub Section Title</h2>
>> 		        <p>...</p>
>> 		        <h3>Page Navigation</h3>
>> 		            <ul>...</ul>
>
> Here I would propose two changes :
>
> 1) Make <H1> bi-valued, as in
>
> 	<h1>Site name : Page title</h1>
>
> 		and
>
> 2) Use <div>s to partition the document into "content"
> and "navigation", rather than using "<body>" as the
> sole primary container.
>
> Thus I might express his re-worked markup as
>
> 	<h1>Site name : Page title>
> 	<div class="Content">
> 		<h2>Sub Section Title</h2>
> 			<p>...</p>
> 		<h2>Sub Section Title</h2>
> 			<p>...</p>
> 		<h2>Sub Section Title</h2>
> 			<p>...</p>
> 	</div>
> 	<div class="Navigation">
> 		<h2>Page Navigation</h2>
> 			<ul>...</ul>
> 	</div>
>
> This, I believe, eliminates the semantic ambiguities
> Of Criag's own re-worked markup, and makes the structure
> clearer even without the use of spider-specific CSS.
>
> Philip Taylor
Received on Friday, 7 July 2006 22:32:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:45 GMT