Yeah you make some excellent points but I'd say forget that for a moment and think of the countless books and articles and blog posts out there that are spewing

Yeah you make some excellent points but I'd say forget that for a moment and think of the countless books and articles and blog posts out there that are spewing the same information over and over. I see a ton of professional, established web design firms still designing sites like its 1997. My takeaway from this was to really just remember that the rules have their place but it's a mistake to follow them just because they've become accepted. The web has changed so much in the past 3 years alone that we need to reevaluate the rules and each time we design a site ask ourselves if we're doing this because it's the rule or because it makes sense in terms of design and usability. I'm still seeing a ton of people preach about using the keyword meta tag and preaching about divitis and semantic markup. Those ideas are all well and good but things are different now. I know those aren't exactly design related issues but the point is that some people are being fed outdated info. There are a lot more opportunities to break the rules And actually be rewarded these days. So you're content is more like a section than an article. Okay, well that's debatable. Too many divs? Well it could be or maybe there's no other way and it's not hurting future modifications or rendering or load times. So be it. The point is that we can't be blindly following these rules. Obviously we really need to know and understand the rules first. But once you know the rules you can then break them when it makes sense. I read the post such that the author was basically saying "think about if the rule you're about to implement makes sense. If you found another way that works do it. We're all pros and we can handle it". Amateurs should stick to the rules until they get their bearings but the rest of us should remember that it's not 1997 anymore and sometimes those rules don't apply to the situation. I'm not disagreeing with you, just had a different take on the message in the post.