W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: <di>? Please?

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:38:21 +0000
Message-ID: <4F2D42DD.3000708@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Ambrose LI wrote:

> 
> I wonít exactly say DIV is non-structural.  There are such things as
> structural uses of DIV; itís more correct to say itís an HTML
> container with undefined semantics (defined by conventions) and/or
> undefined style (defined by stylesheets).
> 

My understanding is that neither DIV nor SPAN were intended as purely 
presentational units.  They were intended to allow the structure to be 
extended (by using classes) without having every possibly structure in 
the formal language, thus keeping HTML much simpler than, say, DocBook.

It may well be that designers are using them without thinking about 
their structural meaning.

I think one thing that could be done here is to compare this with tagged 
PDF.  That starts from the point of view that presentation defines the 
structure of the document then tries to overlay it with semantics. 
Where form follows function, it interleaves the structural information, 
akin to the current CSS position.  Where there is a conflict, e.g. page 
headings, it has a second data stream that describes how to group 
presentational units into semantic ones.

That out of line approach is more like a CSS only approach.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 14:40:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT