- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:56:27 -0800
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:46 AM, usuario <soyhobo at gmail.com> wrote: >> <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. Yes, we found a small set of wrappers which were so ubiquitous that it was worthwhile promoting them from a private semantic (only the page itself knows what it's talking about) to a public semantic (everyone knows what a <header> or <section> is). I believe you're arguing that the "wrapper" semantic, being similarly ubiquitous, thus needs its own new element as well. What you're missing is that the "wrapper" semantic is precisely what <div> already expresses. >> <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. I don't understand the difference between "wrapping" and "containing" something. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 28 February 2011 10:56:27 UTC