Re: Font-style vs. phrase elements (fwd)

MegaZone wrote:
++ Once upon a time James K. Tauber shaped the electrons to say...
++ >You'd need a DIV for each subsection of your FAQ. What's wrong with 
++ >that? It makes perfect sense to me. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean 
++ What does it buy me?
++ I'm serious - assume I want every section to use the same styles so I'm
++ not using DIV to indicate classes or anything.
++ <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>b</TITLE></HEAD><BODY><DIV><H1>some text</H1><DIV>
++ <H2>section</H2><P>First Paragraph</P><DIV><H2>Another section</H2><P>Another
++ Paragraph</P></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

Actually, you got that wrong. It should be:
<BODY><DIV><H1> </H1><DIV><H2> </H2><P> </P></DIV><DIV><H2> </H2><P> </P></DIV>

++ What will this do for me - other than reduce readability of the document
++ and drive me crazy when I do markup trying to keep track of DIVs?  This
++ is like programming LISP/SCHEME and keeping track of Parens!  (I hate those
++ languages...)

That's why there are HTML editors, programable all-purpose editors,
validatores and Perl/Python/Tcl/Rexx/m4/....

++ I don't see the advantage to this, what am I missing?

More structure in the document.

++ What happens when we get Divs nested 6 deep?  Have you seen H6 lately? On
++ Netscape it is almost unreadable it is so small.  And I can see more than
++ 6 deep nesting on some docs I have.

That is strange. Why would you have more than 6 deep nesting of <div>s,
but no use for <h6>s? (I assume you don't use them now). I would say,
if you now use <h4>, you end up with 4 deep nesting of <div>s
in this proposal.

++ >But I still don't understand your problem with restrictive DIVs. If you 
++ >are marking up a *structured* document, they would be a dream come true.
++ And what about when I'm just tossing up a personal page that rambles on
++ and doesn't have a rigid structure?

Then you would use the tag soup as 98% of the current documents already
are made from. I don't think Netscape would suddenly refuse to render
those documents.



Received on Monday, 27 May 1996 20:02:18 UTC