CSS and plain text
in [CSS]
|
Prev: textarea wrap
Next: Image and Text Side By Side
From: Spartanicus on 12 Sep 2006 05:42 "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela(a)cs.tut.fi> wrote: >> You claimed in response to: >> >>>> For a copyright notice, rendering with a top margin is appropriate >>>> for non CSS rendering situations. >> >> that >> >>> such rendering would look rather foolish. > >Something like that, yes, though I'm not that interested in opening all the >preceding subtopics, after you have made it clear that you say that >1) people should use semantic markup for everything and >2) you regard markup as semantic if it "functionally" (= presentationally, >in any reasonable interpretation I can imagine) does what you want. >That's a possible approach, and I find it futile to argument against it, >since you seem to have completely lost the semantics of "semantics". How >could I express myself to you using words only if words have quite private >meanings to you? > >> Throughout this thread I have advocated the use of a semantic element >> to mark up text instead of a non semantic element. > >You have, and I have explained why semantically wrong semantic markup is >much worse than non-semantic markup. Using <h6>foo bar</h6> to make foo bar >appear in smaller font is much worse than <font size="2">foo bar</font>, >even though the <h6> markup might "functionally" "work" for the purpose. It is more than a wild exaggeration to claim that a potential slight deviation from applying markup semantically (and only by your personal undisclosed definition of such) amounts to abandoning the principle completely. >> I find it bizarre >> how from that you are trying to make it appear that I am straying from >> defined appropriate markup practice. > >You are, because appropriate markup uses semantic elements in their >_defined_ meanings. A <p> element indicates a paragraph of text, not some >arbitrary block. I am finding it increasingly difficult to continue this discussion because you have not answered several of the points I made before. a) What is the definition of a paragraph that you are using? b) Does it align with the body of opinion on what defines a paragraph? c) If not, why do you think that the definition that you use is correct? d) What is the use case for using separate markup elements for short text that is structurally separate from adjacent content and a paragraph? e) What is the use case against using paragraph markup for short text? f) Do you acknowledge the problems I demonstrated caused by using <div>? g) Do you accept that it is improper to rely on a potential default styling property of an adjacent element to create a structural separation? h) Do you accept that a default rendering where semantic elements have a non zero top margin and a zero bottom margin is possible, that it works, and that there is nothing wrong with such a rendering? >>>> I'm not familiar with the phrase "procedural markup". >>> >>> Try reading the SGML Handbook. :-) >> >> I conclude that the objective of someone who uses language who's >> semantics can only be derived from a non publicly available source is >> to obscure, rather than to communicate. > >The SGML Handbook has been publicly available for years. Maybe you meant >that it is not available to you free of charge or free of effort? I can >assure that any effort in getting access to the book e.g. through a suitable >library will be outweighed by the effort needed to understand its content. >But anyone who seriously advocates "semantic markup" in public should really >understand the difference between "procedural markup" and "descriptive >markup" as described in the SGML Handbook, in one of its most readable >parts. > >ObCSS: Both procedural markup and descriptive markup _may_ have an impact on >rendering in CSS terms. For procedural markup, that would be an _essential_ >impact, since procedural markup more or less _means_ controlling the >rendering. For descriptive markup, the connection, if any, is coincidental. >An element like <div> is descriptive markup at a rather abstract level, >saying nothing except "this is a block". A <div> has no semantic or structural meaning if used without attributes. It does not define content to be of type "block", but to be "block-level" http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.5.4 This only refers to which of the two basic HTML *DTD* content models (block and inline) it belongs to, it should not be taken to have any relevance to actual content (when used without attributes). Were it not for the fact that the HTML DTD uses these 2 basic groups of content models in which these elements must fall we would only have one "Grouping element", not two (span /and/ div). The HTML4 spec says: "The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for adding structure to documents." http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.5.4 But the "structure" in that sentence should only be understood to relate to the content if such elements are used with attributes for styling or language flagging purposes. This is supported by the descriptive comments in the DTD for span and div: "generic language/style container" >> I also find it rather telling that you have snipped and not responded >> to several of the arguments I put forward. > >Yes, it tells about good Usenet conduct - to quote only the parts you wish >to comment on. It doesn't help to leave arguments unanswered in a discussion, counter arguments should be presented, or the point should be conceded. If points are left unanswered the discussion is in danger of going around in circles as seems to be happening here with you repeating an argument that I've responded to before, but you then left those responses unchallenged. >So does the fact that in this discussion, which seems to get >somewhat personal at least on your side, I apologize for accusing you of intending to obscure. I had no way of knowing for sure that this was your intent, merely that this was the result. >I am using my real name and address. Ad hominem? What does that have to do with what is being discussed? -- Spartanicus
From: Jukka K. Korpela on 12 Sep 2006 06:43 Spartanicus <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> scripsit: >> I am using my real name and address. > > Ad hominem? What does that have to do with what is being discussed? Nothing. It is just a matter of civilized conduct. _You_ made personal attacks against me in public, yet you hide behind a fake name and a fake address. That's simply disgustingly bad manners and cowardice, _especially_ when you don't change your manners in a situation like this. You also keep quoting much more than needed to establish what you are commenting on, and you are apparently _now_ trying to defend the use of <p> markup for non-paragraphs, _after_ you have clearly made your point about treating "semantics" as a matter of "functionality", i.e. presentational (procedural) markup. Under some other circumstances, if you had behaved and if this were the right group for such discussions, I might have tried to help you out of corner where you have painted yourself in. Please continue using the same forged From field as now, until you start behaving and your postings can be regarded as worth reading. TIA. -- Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Andy Dingley on 12 Sep 2006 07:19 Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > yet you hide behind a fake name and a fake address. Yes, but you claim to be a pot-plant. > Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
From: Jón Fairbairn on 12 Sep 2006 11:22 Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> writes: > J?n Fairbairn wrote: > > Gus Richter <gusrichter(a)netscape.net> writes: > > > >> J?n Fairbairn wrote: > >>> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please(a)dont.try> writes: > >>> > >>>> Thanks Mr. Shagnasty, Jukka, and others. I think you've covered it. > >>>> > >>>> The text to which I referred could be within <body> tags, > >>>> but not otherwise contained by what I would recognize as > >>>> typical selectors for text (h#, p, blockquote, etc.) If I > >>>> understand correctly, it sounds like this sort of thing > >>>> could be influenced by using the body as selector. > >>> But what /is/ it? I'm finding it hard to come to terms with > >>> the idea of text that belongs to no semantic category. > >> Anonymous Text / Anonymous Box > >> > >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level> > > Well, that's what it ends up being called for the purposes > > of CSS, but what kind of thing /is/ the text? > > This being a CSS NG, the answer was right on, IMHO. > > In HTML, it is #PCDATA - "Parsed Character Data" (text and markup). OK, now we've done the whole "what are grits" thing... What kind of wordage is it in the OP's document doesn't belong between any of the usual HTML semantic elements? Only the OP can answer that, though people who understand HTML, CSS and general literary usage might offer possible cases. In the case where it's some category for which there is no semantically suitable HTML, surely the appropriate thing to do is to put it in a div with class="some mnemonic for whatever the thing really is" in lieu of a proper piece of markup? -- J?n Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn(a)cl.cam.ac.uk
From: Spartanicus on 12 Sep 2006 12:48
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela(a)cs.tut.fi> wrote: >>> I am using my real name and address. >> >> Ad hominem? What does that have to do with what is being discussed? > >Nothing. It is just a matter of civilized conduct. _You_ made personal >attacks against me in public, yet you hide behind a fake name and a fake >address. That's simply disgustingly bad manners and cowardice, _especially_ >when you don't change your manners in a situation like this. > >You also keep quoting much more than needed to establish what you are >commenting on, and you are apparently _now_ trying to defend the use of <p> >markup for non-paragraphs, _after_ you have clearly made your point about >treating "semantics" as a matter of "functionality", i.e. presentational >(procedural) markup. Under some other circumstances, if you had behaved and >if this were the right group for such discussions, I might have tried to >help you out of corner where you have painted yourself in. > >Please continue using the same forged From field as now, until you start >behaving and your postings can be regarded as worth reading. TIA. This reaction at this particular time is certainly one way of avoiding the awkward questions, but not a worthy one. O how the mighty has fallen. -- Spartanicus |