- From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:21:51 -0500
- To: "Gordon Worley" <redbird@orlando.crosswinds.net>, "David Birdsall" <D.Birdsall@herts.ac.uk>, "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf > Of Gordon Worley > Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 9:39 AM > To: David Birdsall; www-html > Subject: Re: <div align=justify> ? > > > David Birdsall wrote: > > >Does the <div> tag allow you to format text, so that it is justified > >across the page, instead of the usual left, right and centre alignments? > > No. It does not exist (at least to my knowledge, and if it does it > shouldn't) Folks, a 30-second trip to the HTML spec can clear this right up. Please bother to check: <URI:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#adef-align> > because the DIV element was designed for use with CSS. I dunno about that. A generic division element has utility beyond application of style sheets. DIV and SPAN are elements of "last resort". You should probably only use them when the logical implications of more descriptive elements do not apply to your content (regardless of whether or not you're using style sheets). > Since > CSS would be doing all of the formating, why should the DIV element be > given more attributes to become redundent. Probably for consistency. > Text alignment tags have been > deprecated from HTML to seperate between structure and > appearence. Yes; that doesn't mean they don't exist. > The redundency would make your document all the harder to read. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. > The beauty of CSS is that you only have to define the appearence of > somellthing once, so that your HTML represents the structure of your > document, making it easier to read. Indeed, but until the state of CSS support improves, many authors are content to satisfy themselves with the less-powerful (and thus more likely to be adequately implemented) mechanisms in HTML alone. Braden
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 15:21:44 UTC