2 ms·
Sure I see it. But your whole argument is on the basis points of 2 commented divs? <!-- These extra divs/spans may be used as catch-alls to add extra imagery.
by iroboto 18y ago
Sure I see it.
But your whole argument is on the basis points of 2 commented divs?
<!-- These extra divs/spans may be used as catch-alls to add extra imagery. -->
Add extra imagery -- it's posted at the bottom and away from the content. It's not like it's messing with what the programmer needs to develop. You could have easily have removed those tags and only the designs that decided to take use of them would get hurt -- but it is optional, not a requirement.
<!--extra div for flexibility - this list will probably be the trickiest spot you'll deal with -->
I thought we discussed that browsers incompatibilities are the reason for this.
The core of the content is listed at the top of the HTML page which is organized properly.
TBH: I would hardly call this level of adding extra markup anywhere close to other HTML where the presentation is completely ingrained.
- chairface 18y ago> it's posted at the bottom and away from the content But it's HTML, and should therefore should BE content. But it's not; it's presentation. > I thought we discussed that browsers incompatibilities are the reason for this. You seem to be missing my point. If CSS, as implemented NOW, worked as advertised and offered a way to separate content from presentation while retaining flexibility, then we'd have no argument. I'd happily be using it for what is intended. You just can't do that now, and I'm tired of people telling me that I can. > I would hardly call this level of adding extra markup anywhere close to other HTML where the presentation is completely ingrained. Of course it's not completely ingrained. But I want it to be able to be completely separated before I'm going to join your camp.