[thesite] test.evolt.org change fyi

[aardvark]

> From: "rudy" <r937 at interlog.com>
>
> > i don't see how <small> offers any structure
> > or semantic meaning to the content within...
> 
> oh shit, not this argument again

sorry, dude, but i'm gonna make people justify all code...

> look, if <h1> has semantic meaning, then so does <small>

<h1> has structural meaning, not semantic meaning...

> sure, i hear you saying, but there's a difference between a heading
> and plain text

yes, which is why headings are used to denote the structure of a 
page...

> well, yes and no. maybe so, i don't know

there is... i could paste it in if you like...

> but if <code> has semantic meaning, then so does <small>

<code> tells the UA that it is a special chunk of text that should be 
treated as computer code... it has very specific semantic 
meaning... it's not a style thing, it actually *tells* the UA what the 
content consists of...

> <code> is plain text, it's just styled differently, and please don't
> try to argue your way out of that one

i just did... please try to prove to me that <code> is strictly 
styling...

but wait, i think i'll get it from the horse's mouth...

------------------------
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.1
9.2 Structured text
9.2.1 Phrase elements: EM, STRONG, DFN, CODE, SAMP, KBD, 
VAR, CITE, ABBR, and ACRONYM
[...]
Phrase elements add structural information to text fragments. The 
usual meanings of phrase elements are following:
[...]
CODE: 
Designates a fragment of computer code.
------------------------
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#h-15.2.1
15.2.1 Font style elements: the TT, I, B, BIG, SMALL, STRIKE, S, 
and U elements
[...]
Rendering of font style elements depends on the user agent. The 
following is an informative description only.
[...]
SMALL: Renders text in a "small" font.
------------------------

you'll note the W3C refers to <small> as style... and <code> as 
structural information...

you'll also note <b> and <i> are considered style, while <strong> 
and <em> are considered structural...

> and anyhow, i have two final points
> 
>  ~ if <small> validates xhtml strict, wtf is wrong with using it

<small> only offers style, not any semantics... it doesn't tell me 
what kind of text is within... it only tells the UA to make it 
smaller... it doesn't indicate anything to alternative browsers... in 
short, it does *nothing* but make text smaller...

and how do you propose we do that in the CSS?  as a %?  as hard 
px?  we *should* define that tag if we're gonna use it...

don't use the XHTML spec here, either, the site is coded to the 
HTML 4.01 spec... and yes, it is still a valid element... but it has no 
purpose in this site...

>  ~ would you rather have <small> or <span class="smallfoo">

neither.  they're both inappropriate...

but i said that already...