Mason's Super Webpage - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Mason's Super Webpage

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"stylistically innocuous like DIv"
It is the markup "style" being criticized, not the design style.
I was reading "style" as artistic design.
I confess, I don't give a ($(*& about markup style
I'm an American Pragmatist, a follower of Charles Peirce (sic)

Quoted text here. Click to load it
An excellent suggestion.  God bless you.  Much better.
I simple changed width:80% to width:69%;padding:1em;border:none;
(MSIE needed border:none)  (% is needed for mobiles)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

With the help of my Usenet lovers.

Re: Mason's Super Webpage

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:23:25 +1000, dorayme wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm sorry, dorayme: what exactly do you understand by that phrase?
Is an element something like <img> or an opening/closing pair like
<h2>...</h2>, <ul>...</ul>, or <div>...</div> ? If so, what can possibly be
the *semantics* of such a thing?  

(Grammar or Usage or even Syntax I could understand, but Semantics? Only
things with meanings can be analyzed using semantics. What am I missing?)

Sorry to appear so thick, or to be just trolling, but I just don't get it.  

Thanks, therefore (I hope), for as patient and clear an explanation as
you've just given to poor masonc (who really *does* deserve better than
certain others here have been dishing out to him).

Cheers, -- tlvp
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Re: Mason's Super Webpage

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, an element is what an author uses when he uses tags. If he uses  
<p>...</p> he is using a paragraph element. If he uses the tag <img  
...>, he is using an image element. They are called these things  
because there was an idea, which still has *some* merit, that they are  
suitable for placing paragraphs and images onto the viewport or page.  

In my own view the use of most of the elements was because of their  
default styles (if you don't add any CSS styles, the browser will,  
behind the scenes, use a default set). You can use a DIV or anything  
really, even an <a> to make a paragraph (taken as the simple idea of a  
set of continuous sentences hopefully containing a unitary theme,  
separated top and bottom by a pause or line space) by setting your own  
styles and the visual visitor to your site will be none the wiser. But  
why bother?  

Best to use a <p> because browsers will style it roughly how most of  
us want it. You can tweak or add or adjust the style as you want but  
you get a head start from the communal practice of browsers agreeing  
on the defaults. <p> means a paragraph element because it is the  
element that default styles to how we mostly want paragraphs to look.  

As for semantics, we all know or should know that there have been some  
big changes in how the most advanced and sophisticated web authors,  
those with more than a mere practical bent, rather reflective people  
(like J. Korpela), have come to be disenchanted with the former rather  
glorious idea of semantic markup (patience tlvp, I'm coming to it) and  
are now taking a far more practical view of web design. This does not  
mean that because they are disenchanted with the former gospel of the  
semantic markup and the separation of content and style, they have  
lost all sensibility of some of the practical benefits of these  
distinctions or are blind to bad design.

Semantic markup is simply marking up your page with the elements that  
best fit in meaning what you are laying down. If it is a paragraph,  
use a P, if it is a list, use an UL or OL and LIs. If you have a main  
heading, use an H1, and subheadings depending on the logical order of  
their meanings, intention, use H2, H3 on down as they become more and  
more sub. If anything this is good author practice because it is a  
rough guide to how to proceed.  

You *can* use, say, mostly DIVs (the element that you use when you  
don't really have a better more focussed element) and style the  
various instances to look or sound the way you want but life is easier  
if you get a head start and use as much as possible reliable elements  
that are intended for a particular purpose (meaning, semantics).

Look, I'm just typing here quickly and not writing an essay. Hope this  
helps a bit.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Don't worry tlvp, everyone knows you are a troll, I am a resident  
troll too. We all are to various extents.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Mason's Super Webpage

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:36:17 +1000, dorayme summarized:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, it'd be nice, then, if each element's documentation told what purpose
that element served. Even nicer if it defined the term describing the
purpose in the few cases that a purpose is described. Nicer still if it
told whether the element was of block or of in-line type.

For example: <HR>. I'm told that defines a horizontal rule. Well, I'm all
for rules, and regulations, and law and order, and such, but what makes a
rule *horizontal*? are there *vertical rules? A rule can be broad or narrow
in its scope or applicability, but what can be meant by its height? or
width? The semantics of the word "rule" is all over the map!

Oh, it didn't mean rule in the regulation, law, or order sense, it meant
the sort of line that you might have drawn with a straight-edge or ruler?
Well, that was a bit counter-intuitive for me, non-obvious syntax.

Same for <DIV>. I try to invest in stocks that pay dividends. I know how to
perform short and long division. I've learned enough about the grammar or
syntax of the DIV tag to be aware of how much stylistic markup can be
injected into it by suitable attributes and values. But I fail to spot any
semantics for DIV or any semantics of relevance to the usage of DIV for any
of the few real English words I can think of that start with the letters
D-i-v-... (diversion? diversity? diverticulosis? dividend? division?
divisor? reciDIVism? Diva? divine? My primary reference manual says:

: <DIV>...</DIV> Usage: Creates user-defined block-level structure to the document.

Do you see anything redolent of semantic information in that?

OK: inline stuff. <B>, <I>, <U>, I get: bold, italic, underlined. Fine. But
<STRONG>? <EM>? -- seemingly completely indeterminate in their effect.

I give up. I think I largely side with masonc, in finding nothing
compellingly semantic about most HTML tags, bar <IMG> and <TABLE> and
<BLOCKQUOTE> (whose use -- well the last two anyway-- most folks here tend
to discourage, though I find them invaluable :-) ).

I'll stop, though, before I get accused of trollery. Cheers, and, as
always, thanks, -- tlvp
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Re: Mason's Super Webpage

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Basically, the suggestions I gave were not for complete novices. It is  
for people who know a bit about things, mainly who have a practical  
knowledge of how the default styles are handled in browsers.  

Surprising as it might seem, the main value of using a bit of semantic  
markup, given that the former dream of strict semantic markup has  
faded, is to save you the trouble of starting from scratch with  

Look at the main elements I mentioned. No need to overthink these  
things or exaggerate.


Re: Mason's Super Webpage

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:20:37 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I know that's standard, but it has always seemed odd to me, like a  
outline with only one entry at the top level. It would seem more  
logical -- in my opinion, of course -- to have a unique tag used for  
the page title in the page body, as there's a unique tag for the page  
title in the page header.

I do violate the rule in pages like
That's a printer-friendly version of my textbook, formed by an awk  
script that cobbles together all the original chapters from here:

But that's a special case, and otherwise I stick to one <h1> per  

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
HTML 4.01 spec:
CSS 2.1 spec:
Why We Won't Help You:

Site Timeline