By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
449,018 Members | 884 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,018 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Home-made fluid or elastic layout?

P: n/a
Once again my big mouth has landed me with a tough job.

I have a static CSS layout, where each and every element has been defined
by pixel size - lots of them, too! Mostly relative elements, though.

Imagine centered column layout, with a header box, and content box with
lots of smaller content boxes of different sizes, some spanning several
'rows' or 'columns'.

How would you go about changing this kind of static layout into
elastic/fluid one? It would need to expand vertically, mostly, as the text
size increases, basically. I really dont know how to approach this house of
cards..

Whata a headache!

Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
22 Replies


P: n/a
Jam Pa:
How would you go about changing this kind of static layout into
elastic/fluid one?


1. Make a screenshot.
2. Outline the mark-up (pen and paper often works best). I suppose you
cannot change it.
3. Draw the desired layout (perhaps on top of the screenshot).
4. Throw away all CSS rules with 'display', 'position' (incl. 'top',
'right', 'bottom', 'left', 'z-index'), 'float' (incl. 'clear'),
'visibility', 'margin'/'border'/'padding' (all three incl. the
properties they are shorthands of), 'width'/'height' (incl.
'min-'/'max-'). You might have to check on 'background' etc., too.
5. Code as usual; do not define more than absolutely necessary.
6. Test as usual.
Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Jam Pa <an******@non-anon.org> wrote:
Imagine
John Lennon is no longer with us, we prefer urls.

[snip layout description]
How would you go about changing this kind of static layout into
elastic/fluid one?
We also prefer people who don't waste our time and Google for basic
information.
Whata a headache!


No, you are just annoying.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:d1********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie:
Jam Pa <an******@non-anon.org> wrote:
Imagine
John Lennon is no longer with us, we prefer urls.


Well, I can tell you cannot imagine, you rude person.

Why on earth did you reply to this if you dont want to imagine? Imagination
is what makes us human, what distinguishes us from machines (and some
animals, too).

Next time you CANNOT follow the jive, why not GO AWAY instead of replying.

[more 1 minded (mindless?) drivel deleted] We also prefer people who don't waste our time and Google for basic
information.


Yes, you are the borg, you with no social skills! *robot voice reply*

The example I provide is so simple that any web coder with any skills could
create a mental image of what I am talking about. Clearly you have no place
psoting in this group since you lack the basic skills.
Whata a headache!


No, you are just annoying.


"Its better to be annoying that to be an singleminded fool"
(ancient finnish proverb)

For anybody else reading this, I am not talking about an EXACT CASE, but an
abstract, generic case. I am looking for guidelines and discussion.
Beginners need not apply.
Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Christoph_P=E4per?= <ch**************@nurfuerspam.de> wrote
in news:d8***********@ariadne.rz.tu-clausthal.de:
Jam Pa:
How would you go about changing this kind of static layout into
elastic/fluid one?
1. Make a screenshot.


Hehe this is kind of unorthodox. I am going to try this.
2. Outline the mark-up (pen and paper often works best). I suppose you
cannot change it.
Do you mean outline the blocks/boxes?
3. Draw the desired layout (perhaps on top of the screenshot).
In this case both are the same, but the layout should stretch in size if
the text size or text lenght increases..
4. Throw away all CSS rules with 'display', 'position' (incl. 'top',
'right', 'bottom', 'left', 'z-index'), 'float' (incl. 'clear'),
'visibility', 'margin'/'border'/'padding' (all three incl. the
properties they are shorthands of), 'width'/'height' (incl.
'min-'/'max-'). You might have to check on 'background' etc., too.
I think I kind of understand what you are getting at - remove all 'layout
code'? (whachamacallit)
5. Code as usual; do not define more than absolutely necessary.
6. Test as usual.


Lemme see...
Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jam Pa wrote:
Once again my big mouth has landed me with a tough job. [..] How would you go about changing this kind of static layout into
elastic/fluid one?
You've given yourself a double dose of problems, if you're not already
comfortable with designing flexibly with strict-ish HTML plus CSS
presentation.

Ideally, you would disregard the current layout, and mark up the
content for its semantic purpose, with no thought for presentation.

Then you would go to the CSS and work out how to render the marked-up
content to resemble the intended presentation.

In practice you'd probably have to make some compromises if you're
eager for the result to look indistinguishable from the original in
the presentation situation that the customer/promoter/client had in
mind. The benefits, of course, are that the result is then much more
adaptable to other presentation situations, and to none (e.g indexers
and search robots).
It would need to expand vertically, mostly, as the text size
increases, basically. I really dont know how to approach this house
of cards..


My feeling is that one needs to gain enough experience first in
designing new sites to the strict-ish-HTML for content markup, with
flexible CSS presentation, to be comfortable with the method and have
a good feel for what it can and can't do in the currently-available
browsers, before starting on re-engineering existing HTML/3.2-ish and
table-based-layout sites. Starting on that first before getting a
grounding in the fundamentals of the method seems to be the way to get
a double headache, and the result is bound to be sub-optimal. If
anyone says "WYSIWYG", then "run away, run away". That isn't how the
WWW works.

hope this is vaguely useful
Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Jam Pa <an******@non-anon.org> wrote:
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:d1********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.ie:
Jam Pa <an******@non-anon.org> wrote:
Imagine


John Lennon is no longer with us, we prefer urls.


Well, I can tell you cannot imagine, you rude person.

For anybody else reading this, I am not talking about an EXACT CASE, but an
abstract, generic case. I am looking for guidelines and discussion.
Beginners need not apply.


You disregard one of the most experienced people around in this newsgroup in the
most rude manner and then still expect other experienced people to be friendly
to you?

Byebye,

*plonk*

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Barbara de Zoete" <b_********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:opsseugep2x5vgts@zoete_b:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:40:56 +0000 (UTC), Jam Pa
<an******@non-anon.org> wrote:
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:d1********************************@news.spart anicus.utvinternet.i
e:
Jam Pa <an******@non-anon.org> wrote:

Imagine

John Lennon is no longer with us, we prefer urls.
Well, I can tell you cannot imagine, you rude person.

For anybody else reading this, I am not talking about an EXACT CASE,
but an abstract, generic case. I am looking for guidelines and
discussion. Beginners need not apply.


You disregard one of the most experienced people around in this
newsgroup in the most rude manner and then still expect other
experienced people to be friendly to you?


EEk! Attack of the clones!!
Byebye,

*plonk*


I feel very sorry for you barbra.. For posting off topic.

Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk:
hope this is vaguely useful
Very much so, thank you very for posting (and thinking before posting)
on topic in this thread. If there were more people like you the usenet
would actually be a nice place!

I guess I should have title my post 'Home-made pattern for converting
static CSS-layouts to fluid layouts?'.

I guess this 'problem-space' is way too generic and a generic pattern
cannot be created. BUT I think something like this would be a start (in
pseudocode):

Comment lines
-- where units have been defined with absolute units (px)
-- ??
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jam Pa wrote:
Once again my big mouth has landed me with a tough job. [..]
How would you go about changing this kind of static layout into
elastic/fluid one? Ideally, you would disregard the current layout, and mark up the
content for its semantic purpose, with no thought for presentation.
That is very nicely put and I probably will quote you in future, but I
cannot disregard the current layout as its what I need to either modify
or replicate. I do understand what you mean, and the 'html-code' (bunch
of divs really) is quite clean (no presentation in there).
Then you would go to the CSS and work out how to render the marked-up
content to resemble the intended presentation.
Yes, well, thats the 'work' I'm trying to avoid by posting here (or at
least procrastinate...)
In practice you'd probably have to make some compromises if you're
eager for the result to look indistinguishable from the original in
the presentation situation that the customer/promoter/client had in
mind. The benefits, of course, are that the result is then much more
adaptable to other presentation situations, and to none (e.g indexers
and search robots).


Yes, it has to be exactly like the original.

Lesson learned: I am never coding a static (non-fluid/elastic) CSS
layout again.
It would need to expand vertically, mostly, as the text size
increases, basically. I really dont know how to approach this house
of cards..


My feeling is that one needs to gain enough experience first in
designing new sites to the strict-ish-HTML for content markup, with
flexible CSS presentation, to be comfortable with the method and have
a good feel for what it can and can't do in the currently-available
browsers, before starting on re-engineering existing HTML/3.2-ish and
table-based-layout sites.


More experience? I started doing web about a decade ago? How can you
have much more experience!!?!? (joking)

I understand I didn't mention that the layout is pure CSS and the XHTML
doesn't contain any presentation instructions. Everybody around here
seems to think everybody else is a newbie using old-style-HTML, which is
kind of strange since this is a CSS newsgroup! PLUS around where I live
& work no-body would be caught dead with presentation in their HTML.

PS. Can you tell I'm being paid by the hour :D
Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
Barbara de Zoete:
You disregard one of the most experienced people around in this
newsgroup in the most rude manner and then still expect other
experienced people to be friendly to you?


Actually IMO this time Spartanicus was out of line (first), calling
someone annoying, who, for a change, is seeking a general discussion on
best practice and is not one of those "please write my stylesheet for
me, my boss wants it yesterday" people. (That is how I interpreted the
OP.) Nevertheless, IIRC there has been discussion on this before, but
not that often.
Jul 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
Jam Pa:
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Christoph_P=E4per?=


Do I really have to reinstall the proxy that changes the From for
international newsgroups?
2. Outline the mark-up (pen and paper often works best).


Do you mean outline the blocks/boxes?


I mean an outline that gives you an overview of the mark-up and thus
helps you in choosing selectors. You probably either use a tree or a
drawing of stacked boxes.

I sometimes put such outlines into my stylesheets:

body
h1#top: img.logo
map#nav
ul
li: a ]+
...
3. Draw the desired layout (perhaps on top of the screenshot).


In this case both are the same, but the layout should stretch in size if
the text size or text lenght increases..


Draw relations, fixed/min/max widths or heights---where necessary.
4. Throw away all CSS rules with ...


remove all 'layout code'?


Yes. Actually "rm -s *.css" can be the best approach (hope you don't
have embedded and inline styles).
Jul 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christoph_P=E4per?= ^ Jam Pa:
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Christoph_P=E4per?=
^^ Do I really have to reinstall the proxy that changes the From for
international newsgroups?


No, but you should use ISO-8859-1 in your From address.
There is no need for ISO-8859-15 here.
http://www.google.com/search?q=8859-15+Science.Museum

--
Everybody expects the German Inquisition.

Jul 21 '05 #12

P: n/a
Jam Pa wrote:

the 'html-code' (bunch
of divs really) is quite clean (no presentation in there).
A "bunch of divs" sounds less like clean (semantic) markup and more like
div-soup.

Initially, get rid of all the <div> markup (and <span>, plus any kludges
like "<br><br>"). Add markup for headings (proper h1-h6 levels),
paragraphs, lists, tables (if tabular data is present) and other
semantics where appropriate. Make sure all elements are ordered in a
logical top-down sequence so the page makes sense just as it is. This is
where div-soup turns into clean, valid (X)HTML.

Now you should have your base structure and can work on styling it to
get the desired layout, as Alan mentioned. You might add some <div>
containers to facilitate styling multiple elements as a group, but keep
these to a minimum.
Yes, well, thats the 'work' I'm trying to avoid by posting here (or at
least procrastinate...)
Sorry, you can't avoid it.
Yes, it has to be exactly like the original.
Keep in mind the whole point of a flexible layout is that it doesn't
*have* to be exact.

Regardless, you can often come close enough where the small differences
aren't really noticeable and are quite acceptable.
Lesson learned: I am never coding a static (non-fluid/elastic) CSS
layout again.


Good for you. :)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote in news:3h************@individual.net:
Jam Pa wrote:

the 'html-code' (bunch
of divs really) is quite clean (no presentation in there).
A "bunch of divs" sounds less like clean (semantic) markup and more like
div-soup.


Its way clean. I'm clean. All the CSS-purists and the Zeldmanian
inquisition can come over for all I care.
Initially, get rid of all the <div> markup (and <span>, plus any kludges
like "<br><br>"). Pardon my ignorance, but why would one need to get rid of divs? Or spans
for that matter - imho that is how you structure html for layout.
Add markup for headings (proper h1-h6 levels),
paragraphs, lists, tables (if tabular data is present) and other
semantics where appropriate. Make sure all elements are ordered in a
logical top-down sequence so the page makes sense just as it is. This is
where div-soup turns into clean, valid (X)HTML.
Gee, you sound like you want to do all the work for me.
Now you should have your base structure and can work on styling it to
get the desired layout, as Alan mentioned. You might add some <div>
containers to facilitate styling multiple elements as a group, but keep
these to a minimum.


Hey! Div's are dime a dozen! Seriously - whats wrong with using a lot of
Divs, other than making Zeldman, Meyer and other 'Overuse of divs causes
cancer'-tutorial authors angry?
Yes, well, thats the 'work' I'm trying to avoid by posting here (or at
least procrastinate...)


Sorry, you can't avoid it.


But I'm doing damn good job not doing it. 4 hours down and counting..
*imagines coins dropping into a chest* ..cling.. ..cling... cling..
Jul 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jam Pa wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk:
hope this is vaguely useful
Very much so, thank you very for posting (and thinking before posting)
on topic in this thread. If there were more people like you the usenet
would actually be a nice place!


There's no need to rub that in: even the best of informants can have
off moments, and the thing to do is just to carry on, not make a big
fuss about it (you landed in my killfile for a moment there, but then
I had second thoughts).
I guess this 'problem-space' is way too generic and a generic pattern
cannot be created.
I guess so, yes. My advice was also too generic, but I stand by it as
a principle, and any compromises should be viewed as just that,
compromises. So knowing the ideal position is valuable IMHO.
-- where units have been defined with absolute units (px)
OK, I won't be pedantic and go off talking about what CSS px units are
(they're not exactly "absolute units" in CSS terms, anyway).

px units can sometimes be useful for defining margins or padding, but
not for text sizes and not for container sizes. I'd normally
recommend to use em units (unless that causes problems with MSIE, in
which case a text size in percent can be useful). You can twiddle the
em sizing in the presentation situation that the promoter is looking
for, until the results look right compared to the original px sizing.
The benefit, of course, is that the sizing responds much more
gracefully when the presentation situation changes.
My feeling is that one needs to gain enough experience first in
designing new sites to the strict-ish-HTML for content markup, with
flexible CSS presentation, to be comfortable with the method and have
a good feel for what it can and can't do in the currently-available
browsers, before starting on re-engineering existing HTML/3.2-ish and
table-based-layout sites.


More experience? I started doing web about a decade ago?


You were designing with strict HTML for content and CSS for
presentation 10 years ago? Even I was only experimenting with it
around that time, and I think there were rather few of us (the only
browser we had was Arena from the W3C).
I understand I didn't mention that the layout is pure CSS and the XHTML
doesn't contain any presentation instructions. Everybody around here
seems to think everybody else is a newbie using old-style-HTML, which is
kind of strange since this is a CSS newsgroup! PLUS around where I live
& work no-body would be caught dead with presentation in their HTML.


I believe I responded on the basis of what I saw in your posting, but
I didn't consult any further references. At any rate the answers
posted here will be read by many others besides yourself, so I think
it's good to set the scene for the answer as well as offering the
answer itself. You can then position yourself properly in deciding
how far the answer is useful to you in relation to your present
expertise.

As at least one other contributor has said so far, you lose many of
the benefits of the ideal if you merely produce "div soup" with both
eyes set on the final presentation. A properly engineered design uses
the (X)HTML elements for their semantic purpose (headings, paragraphs,
list items of various kinds, and so on) rather than an anonymous
bundle of divs and spans that the designer only intends to be hooks
onto which to hang the CSS.

good luck
Jul 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
After giving it some thought (finally), I have come to the conclusion
that like designing a layout in CSS, converting a CSS layout into
another CSS layout is a craft, handiwork, and really cannot be reduced
to a bunch of rules. Paradoxical that to present data from automated
storages we need handcrafted interfaces, dont you think...

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jam Pa wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk:
-- where units have been defined with absolute units (px)
OK, I won't be pedantic and go off talking about what CSS px units are
(they're not exactly "absolute units" in CSS terms, anyway).

px units can sometimes be useful for defining margins or padding, but
not for text sizes and not for container sizes.


I would absolutely love to use pt or em in a production setting if they
did work. And I will the second I can get them to work in a way that
even the pain-in-the-butt AD accepts (Many of you have a lot in common
with this anal person, btw...).
I'd normally recommend to use em units (unless that causes problems
with MSIE, in which case a text size in percent can be useful).
Yeah yeah yeah, how many corporate sites you have made with ems or %?
What do you mean 'unless'? IE was made to cause web designers problems
because the programmers were jealous of the easy money webdesigners were
making... (Plz spare me the 'My relative font size-system' links)
> My feeling is that one needs to gain enough experience first in
> designing new sites to the strict-ish-HTML for content markup, with
> flexible CSS presentation, to be comfortable with the method and
> have a good feel for what it can and can't do in the
> currently-available browsers, before starting on re-engineering
> existing HTML/3.2-ish and table-based-layout sites.


More experience? I started doing web about a decade ago?


You were designing with strict HTML for content and CSS for
presentation 10 years ago? Even I was only experimenting with it
around that time, and I think there were rather few of us (the only
browser we had was Arena from the W3C).


Gotcha there! It was supposed to be jolly good old fooling around, not
ment to be read literally. Thats why I wrote that I was joking after the
comment, guess you didnt catch that, doh!
answer itself. You can then position yourself properly in deciding
how far the answer is useful to you in relation to your present
expertise.


Thats way too complicated. What I have learned is try to keep it simple.
Practical. Pragmatic. Anything else will cost you as extra work. Lazy is
good.

Speaking of lazy, I think I need to get to work...
Jul 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
Jam-Pa wrote:

Hey! Div's are dime a dozen! Seriously - whats wrong with using a lot of
Divs, other than making Zeldman, Meyer and other 'Overuse of divs causes
cancer'-tutorial authors angry?


Have you ever tried to actually use a page that was only marked up with
div, span, and br elements in something other than a (desktop) graphical
browser with CSS enabled?

If you had, you probably wouldn't need to ask such a question.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jam-Pa wrote:
Paradoxical that to present data from automated
storages we need handcrafted interfaces, dont you think...
Yes, I've absolutely nothing against using a decent authoring tool, if
you can find one, but at the level we're discussing here the only
thing that matters is what your server emits to the WWW - how you
generated it is up to you.

Most of the easy money in authoring tools is on soi-disant "WYSIWYG"
tools, which in this context is a contradiction in terms. So you need
to assess your authoring tool to determine what it can and will do in
terms of HTML and CSS generated. In that sense I reckon you need to
be able to assess what it's generating at that level in order to
determine whether it's fit for your purpose.
-- where units have been defined with absolute units (px)


OK, I won't be pedantic and go off talking about what CSS px units are
(they're not exactly "absolute units" in CSS terms, anyway).

px units can sometimes be useful for defining margins or padding, but
not for text sizes and not for container sizes.


I would absolutely love to use pt or em in a production setting


Definitely not pt, at least never for screen display (some say that pt
units are ideal for print-only stylesheets, although for the most part
I've had no problems with printing reasonable web pages that were made
for screen display - the ones I had problems with were, as I'd term
it, "over-designed", which is what you're trying to get clear of, as I
read it). That you can say pt units with a straight face here means
you haven't been reading the group for long enough.
Thats way too complicated. What I have learned is try to keep it
simple. Practical. Pragmatic. Anything else will cost you as extra
work. Lazy is good.


Indeed, and a true interpretation of "lazy" is learning enough to
position yourself for many more of the same, rather than fiddling
around with this one - and the same amount of fiddling with the next
one - and so on, and all of them producing suboptimal results in
relation to what we've been discussing here.

I forgot to mention that doing what we recommend will also, as a
useful by-product unnoticed by your mainstream users, improve your
conformance to the WAI guidelines, particularly to the semantic ones
which can't really be tested by automated checking. In an appropriate
context you might want to offer that as one of the benefits of this
approach.

But it's all IMHO, the final decision is of course your own.
Jul 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
Andreas Prilop:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
Do I really have to reinstall the proxy that changes the From for
international newsgroups?
No, but you should use ISO-8859-1 in your From address.
There is no need for ISO-8859-15 here.


I know and therefore had changed it already after I realized that I was
unintentionally sending out Latin-9; so there was something good about
that attribution line. Nevertheless, even with Latin-1 I expect to
further encounter such crap "generated" by broken/old/misconfigured
newsreaders, but I don't write in that many international newsgroups
currently.
http://www.google.com/search?q=8859-15+Science.Museum


It has its applications. The worst thing about it is, that without it
UTF-8 would have gained a larger momentum by the introduction of the
euro, e.g. in default locales in Linux distributions.
Jul 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote in news:3h************@individual.net:
Jam-Pa wrote:

Hey! Div's are dime a dozen! Seriously - whats wrong with using a lot
of Divs, other than making Zeldman, Meyer and other 'Overuse of divs
causes cancer'-tutorial authors angry?


Have you ever tried to actually use a page that was only marked up
with div, span, and br elements in something other than a (desktop)
graphical browser with CSS enabled?

If you had, you probably wouldn't need to ask such a question.


How does using div's, or even using A LOT of divs relate to potential use
of other tags or not? (Hint: IT DOESN'T!)

And another hint, that question was a rhetorical. Not intended to be taken
literally. But dont worry: Here is a link for you

http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/...-are-not-evil/
Jul 21 '05 #20

P: n/a
Jam-Pa wrote:

How does using div's, or even using A LOT of divs relate to potential use
of other tags or not? (Hint: IT DOESN'T!)
If the page has other semantic markup, divs in themselves probably
aren't an issue. The problem comes when other semantic markup isn't
used, as is the case with typical div-soup markup. Your comment about
using "a lot" of divs lead me to believe it was a case of div-soup.
http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/...-are-not-evil/


I didn't bother reading the text, but looked at the page source code.
Generally speaking, it looks to be a pretty good example of a
well-structured document. IOW, divs are used to group elements, not as
substitutions for those elements. This is an important distinction.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #21

P: n/a


kchayka wrote:
Jam-Pa wrote:

Hey! Div's are dime a dozen! Seriously - whats wrong with using a lot of
Divs, other than making Zeldman, Meyer and other 'Overuse of divs causes
cancer'-tutorial authors angry?


Have you ever tried to actually use a page that was only marked up with
div, span, and br elements in something other than a (desktop) graphical
browser with CSS enabled?


Well, there you go. This is a CSS newsgroup, but we now have a
universal
answer to all CSS related questions: Don't use CSS, because some people
might be using a non-graphical browser, or one with CSS unabled. Ahem.

Not to miss your point, the trouble with HTML 'semantics' is that there
are times when it simply does not fit the semantic model of the
information
you are tryng to present. Sometimes, <div class="meaning"> makes more
sense in the code than any of the existing HTML tag names. It would be
nice to just say <meaning>...</meaning> ala XML, without having to go
thru all the hassle of actual XML. Besides, all those people using
non-graphical browsers without CSS support (there must be dozens of
those people) wouldn't be able to use that, either.

Jul 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
gl***@potatoradio.f2s.com wrote:

This is a CSS newsgroup, but we now have a universal
answer to all CSS related questions: Don't use CSS, because some people
might be using a non-graphical browser, or one with CSS unabled. Ahem.
I wasn't expecting a straw man argument. :-\

Do not forget that CSS is optional, so the page must still be usable
without it. Without semantic markup, usability can be seriously
degraded. Accessibility suffers, as well. Try using a screen reader when
everything sounds like one big run-on sentence, and there are no true
headings or other markers the browser uses to aid page navigation. Look
at the page in a text browser to get an idea. Ish.
Sometimes, <div class="meaning"> makes more
sense in the code than any of the existing HTML tag names.


I don't think anyone would dispute that. The trouble arises when an
appropriate HTML element exists but isn't used, such as using
<div class="heading"> instead of proper heading elements (h1-h6). This
is common in div-soup, and can make browsing in a non-CSS environment a
painful experience.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #23

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.