[theforum] URL Schemas & missing data

aardvark evolt at roselli.org
Fri Dec 3 11:41:15 CST 2004

Garrett Coakley wrote:
> Although I'm one of the people who would like to push for a flavour of
> XHTML (because as I told aard yesterday on #evolt, acronyms with 'X' in
> them are sexy) right away, in the interest of expediency I would be happy
> with us to go for HTML4.01 now, and then look at stepping up to XHTML "at
> some point" in the future once everything is settled.
> This would mean that we wouldn't have to go through the article updating
> <br>'s to <br />'s etc, and also means we can sidestep that whole "what
> mime type" question until later on.

the reformatting of articles, IMO, is one reason (or the *big* reason) 
to push for HTML right now... presuming the code is clean, it should be 
a "simple" matter to update the templates to XHTML...

i have other reasons, but they don't matter right now...

>>but minimums:
>>- valid markup
>>- valid CSS
>>- accessible site (A, AA, or AAA?)
>>- structural and semantic markup
> Yep, yep, yep (AA should be pretty easy now, AAA is an ideal that we
> won't sweat now) and yep - with the proviso that we don't have a table
> wrapped layout... 

agreed on all points...

> ... which brings me neatly onto ...
>>now for divs and spans... by *default*, i will assume any use of divs or 
>>spans is wrong... yes, there are always exceptions,
> I hate spans, but I'm partial to the odd div. 
> Really, they're quite nice with 1 part whole grain mustard to 3 parts mayo.

ick... bacon, perhaps... see 
http://evolt.org/article/clogging_the_beater/18/9286/ for other 
suggestions on prep...

> As a structural wrapper around areas of a page, they're hard to beat.
> Lets say (theoretically) you have three; Header, Sidebar, and Footer, and
> anything outside of those (ie, a direct descendant of the body) is by
> default main content. 
> Possibly four if you wanted to do something clever (that escape me at the
> minute) and you have a wrapper around Content.
> How does that sit? Maybe I'm missing a trick with other ways to section
> up a page though? (and no, a one row table doesn't count)

i can dig that...

by ditching table layouts, we have no choice... that i can think of...

More information about the theforum mailing list