Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Mason's Super Webpage

5 views
Skip to first unread message

masonc

unread,
Aug 22, 2015, 2:17:54 AM8/22/15
to
FYI -- for your interest -- "spam" if you wish:
I decided to throw the book(s) at it.
Equal number, six books in three columns, works best.

All problems have been solved, thanks to help from here.
Thank you all, lovers and critics, everyone.

oh, now, about the sub-pages... .. . .

MasonC http://frontal-lobe.info

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 22, 2015, 3:40:04 PM8/22/15
to
On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
> FYI -- for your interest -- "spam" if you wish:
> I decided to throw the book(s) at it.
> Equal number, six books in three columns, works best.
>
> All problems have been solved, thanks to help from here.
> Thank you all, lovers and critics, everyone.
>
> oh, now, about the sub-pages... .. . .

Why do you put everything in <h2>...</h2>?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

masonc

unread,
Aug 22, 2015, 5:49:38 PM8/22/15
to
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:37:48 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
wrote:
Hysterical history. It is now proper <h1>'s and <h2>'s.
Thanks for this calling to my attention.
SEO will like it better.

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 22, 2015, 7:30:04 PM8/22/15
to
On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:37:48 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
>>> FYI -- for your interest -- "spam" if you wish:
>>> I decided to throw the book(s) at it.
>>> Equal number, six books in three columns, works best.
>>>
>>> All problems have been solved, thanks to help from here.
>>> Thank you all, lovers and critics, everyone.
>>>
>>> oh, now, about the sub-pages... .. . .
>>
>> Why do you put everything in <h2>...</h2>?
>
> Hysterical history. It is now proper <h1>'s and <h2>'s.

No it's not. There should only be one H1 on a page.

Most of the H2s are not headings and should not be marked up as
such.


--
Chris F.A. Johnson

masonc

unread,
Aug 22, 2015, 7:49:11 PM8/22/15
to
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:20:37 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
wrote:

>On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:37:48 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
>>>> FYI -- for your interest -- "spam" if you wish:
>>>> I decided to throw the book(s) at it.
>>>> Equal number, six books in three columns, works best.
>>>>
>>>> All problems have been solved, thanks to help from here.
>>>> Thank you all, lovers and critics, everyone.
>>>>
>>>> oh, now, about the sub-pages... .. . .
>>>
>>> Why do you put everything in <h2>...</h2>?
>>
>> Hysterical history. It is now proper <h1>'s and <h2>'s.
>
> No it's not. There should only be one H1 on a page.
>
> Most of the H2s are not headings and should not be marked up as
> such.

Inasmuch as the page is a table of contents, studying Google search
and SEO is my next project. I ain't simple.

(But, that aside, who says H2 cannot be used for formatting?
I suspect only Google knows.)

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 22, 2015, 8:00:03 PM8/22/15
to
On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:20:37 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 15:37:48 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2015-08-22, masonc wrote:
>>>>> FYI -- for your interest -- "spam" if you wish:
>>>>> I decided to throw the book(s) at it.
>>>>> Equal number, six books in three columns, works best.
>>>>>
>>>>> All problems have been solved, thanks to help from here.
>>>>> Thank you all, lovers and critics, everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> oh, now, about the sub-pages... .. . .
>>>>
>>>> Why do you put everything in <h2>...</h2>?
>>>
>>> Hysterical history. It is now proper <h1>'s and <h2>'s.
>>
>> No it's not. There should only be one H1 on a page.
>>
>> Most of the H2s are not headings and should not be marked up as
>> such.
>
> Inasmuch as the page is a table of contents, studying Google search
> and SEO is my next project. I ain't simple.
>
> (But, that aside, who says H2 cannot be used for formatting?

No one says is can't be; it just makes no sense.
Use CSS for formatting.

> I suspect only Google knows.)


--
Chris F.A. Johnson

masonc

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 12:07:21 AM8/23/15
to
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:59:57 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
Good, but I don't know how. I tried css on "a".
It tried but it got out of hand.
My projects are books et al, not css.
I ride whatever horse gets me there.

Chris F.A. Johnson

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 12:20:03 AM8/23/15
to
Look at the file I used: <http://fl.cfaj.ca/fl.css>.

> It tried but it got out of hand.
> My projects are books et al, not css.
> I ride whatever horse gets me there.

Well, if you prefer to ride a carthorse when you could have a
thoroughbred...

--
Chris F.A. Johnson

dorayme

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 12:25:20 AM8/23/15
to
In article <7jhita114f0j8v9rr...@4ax.com>,
masonc <mas...@frontal-lobe.info> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:59:57 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@cfaj.ca>
> wrote:
>
...

> >>> Most of the H2s are not headings and should not be marked up as
> >>> such.
> >>
...
> > Use CSS for formatting.
> >
> Good, but I don't know how.

Instead of <h2>, you can make a class with a font-size you want and
put the class on the elements you want to see in the size *you*
normally see with an <h2>. For example, instead of <h2>Text</h2>, you
might have <div class="moreProminent">Text</h2> and in your css style
sheet, .moreprominent {font-size: 110%;} and/or other styles like
weight of the text.

masonc, take a break writing so many books and start reading on css.
<g>

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 12:33:41 AM8/23/15
to
In article <do_ray_me-3CB95...@aioe.org>,
dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> For example, instead of <h2>Text</h2>, you
> might have <div class="moreProminent">Text</h2> and in your css style
> sheet, .moreProminent {font-size: 110%;} and/or other styles like
> weight of the text.

Should have read like above!

--
dorayme

tlvp

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 1:17:50 AM8/23/15
to
And should have used </div> as closing tag after "Text", not </h2> :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

dorayme

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 3:36:00 AM8/23/15
to
In article <do_ray_me-2EE7D...@aioe.org>,
dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> > For example, instead of <h2>Text</h2>, you
> > might have <div class="moreProminent">Text</div> and in your css style
> > sheet, .moreProminent {font-size: 110%;} and/or other styles like
> > weight of the text.

<tlvp>
and... should have read as above
</tlvp>

--
dorayme

masonc

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 4:21:50 AM8/23/15
to
I have trouble understanding why <div class="moreProminent">Text</div>
( or <div class="mP">Text</div> )
is simpler or in some way superior to <h2>Text</h2>

And how Google senses them, if at all, is another matter.
I *suspect* that Google will more easily recognize <h2>
as an important item, as it does <h1>.
That is my next mini-project.

MasonC http://frontal-lobe.info

masonc

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 4:28:08 AM8/23/15
to
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:25:16 +1000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:

<snip> </snip
>
>masonc, take a break writing so many books and start reading on css.
><g>

"So many" is seven in 47 years. Asimov wrote 47 in seven years.
Suppose I used absolutely NO css (possible, yes?)

CONTENT over STYLE, certainly over markup style.
MasonC http://frontal-lobe.info

Jonathan N. Little

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 8:45:21 AM8/23/15
to
For I guy that writes books that imply intellectualism, you seem rather
resistant to learning. Not sure why you ask questions then you really do
not want the answers...

My advice is either learn something about web development. Or spend some
of your publishing profits to hire someone to do your web development
for you. Or just keep throwing markup randomly at the browser like pasta
at the wall and forever be bewildered at the results.

Sorry for the tone but you have been at this for years, crying for help
and many have been giving you good advise in a good-faith effort to help
you learn something only to be rebuked. It is tiresome.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Stan Brown

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 9:14:38 AM8/23/15
to
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:20:37 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> There should only be one H1 on a page.

I know that's standard, but it has always seemed odd to me, like a
outline with only one entry at the top level. It would seem more
logical -- in my opinion, of course -- to have a unique tag used for
the page title in the page body, as there's a unique tag for the page
title in the page header.

I do violate the rule in pages like
http://BrownMath.com/swt/pfswt.htm
That's a printer-friendly version of my textbook, formed by an awk
script that cobbles together all the original chapters from here:
http://BrownMath.com/swt/

But that's a special case, and otherwise I stick to one <h1> per
document.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You: http://preview.tinyurl.com/WhyWont

Stan Brown

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 9:19:20 AM8/23/15
to
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:45:26 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> For I guy that writes books that imply intellectualism, you seem rather
> resistant to learning. Not sure why you ask questions then you really do
> not want the answers...
>
> My advice is either learn something about web development. Or spend some
> of your publishing profits to hire someone to do your web development
> for you. Or just keep throwing markup randomly at the browser like pasta
> at the wall and forever be bewildered at the results.
>
> Sorry for the tone but you have been at this for years, crying for help
> and many have been giving you good advise in a good-faith effort to help
> you learn something only to be rebuked. It is tiresome.
>

Very well said!

masonc

unread,
Aug 23, 2015, 2:33:16 PM8/23/15
to
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:45:26 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com>
wrote:
No comprende nada.
1. I have, in fact, learned much here, have said so, and thanks.
2. My book profits run about $15 per month, except for Quimby which
sold 4,200 in the good old days of printing presses.
Nevertheless, I get much satisfaction from knowing that several of
the books have been helpful to people.
3. My posts, even with no questions, often result in a bewildering
follow-up of exchanges, often controversy, among experts.
4. I am proud of my bewildering results. I admit to regarding webbing
as less than "intellectual."

And thanks again for the constructive and instructive responses.
MasonC http://frontal-lobe.info

dorayme

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 12:01:49 AM8/24/15
to
In article <9m0jta51n754gmmcp...@4ax.com>,
OK, several issues here. One is a general issue about the respective
roles of style and content. The other is a personal one and I hope you
don't take offence. Perhaps it will help to say I admire your attitude
of "having a go" (an Australian expression) in writing books and a
website.

Let's start with the ideas of style and content as applied to websites
with lots of content. In many ways, we know well enough what content
is. Not just text but pictures that illustrate points, even some
video. The same content, whatever it is, can be thought to be capable
of being styled in many different ways. Style is therefore something
that seems a little arbitrary, a sort of afterthought, not something
essential.

But this is pretty wrongheaded. There isn't this neat separation, not
even logically. Even in the plainest typed essay, there is the order
of the headings and sections, of the paragraphs, the length of each,
the very words chosen to convey ideas that the author has. Every
writer knows that there are different ways, sometimes hard to choose
between, of conveying things in words alone.

What of these different ways? Are they just stylistically different?
Sometimes we might say the different ways of expressing the thoughts
actually changes the thoughts being conveyed. Not only to the reader
but the author himself. Putting something in a different way sometimes
helps clarifies it enough to say it is actually a different thought to
how it began. The idea of content, divorced from stylistic
considerations, is not as clear cut as some might think.

Now think typing up an essay, full of content, all the words and the
order of the words as perfect as you want them. Will it be better in
this style of font or another? Will it be better, single spaced or
double for the lines? What about margins?

Don't say what does it matter, that content is king! If you choose
badly, you will make communication difficult. Conveying content, even
to oneself intimately involves style. The style is not some add-on.
Bad decisions on style can make for bad communication.

OK, lets now make a distinction between plain (but eminently readable)
and fancier (nicely coloured, appropriately columned, pleasing)
meaning pleasant and communication enhancing. You can see the
difference by say going to a nice website on Firefox and (at least on
a Mac) under View menu choose No Style.

Try

<http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/series/sudoku>

You get a style alright! But a very plain one where the page displays
in a simple way following the HTML order.

Looks pleasant enough and easy to read with the author style given.
But also quite readable enough really when set to remove all the
author CSS. Try it.

Now I want to make a point about your website. In your case your
(author) given styles are not very good and the plain view would
surely be better. But, further, in your case, to get a *plain* view,
remove all CSS, that includes all the references to CSS sheets and all
the style attributes you have all over the HTML. Then you will just
get the content which you are anxious to communicate. The browser will
do a better job of presenting your content than your attempts. Why
waste your time on all this CSS stuff if you are not going to study it
a bit more seriously and even more, given you have a poor sense of
style anyway.

--
dorayme

masonc

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 12:55:27 AM8/24/15
to
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:43 +1000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:

>> <snip> </snip
>
I see a page with no "style" as I understand the word.
And no variation of it would suit my purpose.
>
>Looks pleasant enough and easy to read with the author style given.
>But also quite readable enough really when set to remove all the
>author CSS. Try it.
>
>Now I want to make a point about your website. In your case your
>(author) given styles are not very good and the plain view would
>surely be better. But, further, in your case, to get a *plain* view,
>remove all CSS, that includes all the references to CSS sheets and all
>the style attributes you have all over the HTML. Then you will just
>get the content which you are anxious to communicate. The browser will
>do a better job of presenting your content than your attempts.

I tried that. My browsers do not do a "better job" granted that the
content is there. But the content is thrown on the page and useless
in a narrow viewport. The links are there but not shown. The box
relationships lost. Virtually useless.

> Why
>waste your time on all this CSS stuff if you are not going to study it
>a bit more seriously and even more, given you have a poor sense of
>style anyway.

Granted that my "CSS stuff" is amateur and inefficient, it is giving
me the web page I want. I'd be delighted to hear a specific
criticism of the arrangement, bordering, coloring or any other
aspect of the style. The invisible internals of the "coding" are
another matter -- it works for me but seems to offend.

It is apparent that I live in a different world.

But thanks for the comments, no offense given and none taken.

MasonC http://frontal-lobe.info

dorayme

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 2:23:30 AM8/24/15
to
In article <9l7ltatuf1pg30jne...@4ax.com>,
masonc <mas...@frontal-lobe.info> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:43 +1000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
...

> >Now I want to make a point about your website. In your case your
> >(author) given styles are not very good and the plain view would
> >surely be better. But, further, in your case, to get a *plain* view,
> >remove all CSS, that includes all the references to CSS sheets and all
> >the style attributes you have all over the HTML. Then you will just
> >get the content which you are anxious to communicate. The browser will
> >do a better job of presenting your content than your attempts.
>
> I tried that. My browsers do not do a "better job" granted that the
> content is there. But the content is thrown on the page and useless
> in a narrow viewport.

It is true, I underestimated the styling you had! In fact you use HTML
table elements for styling! And, it seems, H1 and H2 elements. So...
you could get rid of all these and substitute something stylistically
innocuous like DIV. Get into the spirit of the thing for a while at
least! <g>


> The links are there but not shown.

They will show when you get rid of *all* styles.

Put a <br> before and after all your images, this being not too far
from the spirit of plainness, so that they don't appear so confusingly
inline (the default style for the IMG element).

Ah... and about your images, either size them in the html - the unit
is default px: <img src="" width="" height="" alt=""> or use slightly
smaller images.

> The box
> relationships lost.
>

Yes, quite! But that is getting rid of styles you see, and immersing
yourself deeply into the idea of content being king. <g>

> Virtually useless.

Not so if you do it as suggested. It is possible that the very plain
look that results is not very attractive but it at least has this
going for it: you are not trying and failing to make it nice. You are
just giving folks the content.

> > Why
> >waste your time on all this CSS stuff if you are not going to study it
> >a bit more seriously and even more, given you have a poor sense of
> >style anyway.
>
> Granted that my "CSS stuff" is amateur and inefficient, it is giving
> me the web page I want. I'd be delighted to hear a specific
> criticism of the arrangement, bordering, coloring or any other
> aspect of the style. The invisible internals of the "coding" are
> another matter -- it works for me but seems to offend.
>
> It is apparent that I live in a different world.
>
> But thanks for the comments, no offense given and none taken.
>

As a procedure sometimes it is best to start with natural HTML, be
careful not to use it to style anything at all. Look at the semantics
of the elements and ask yourself do they fit your meaning. And use
plain DIVs where you cannot decide. Then look at the whole and style a
few things with CSS. Build the pretty lightly.

Having said all this, your site is looking better these days.

--
dorayme

dorayme

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 2:56:09 AM8/24/15
to
> I tried that. My browsers do not do a "better job" granted that the
> content is there. But the content is thrown on the page and useless
> in a narrow viewport. The links are there but not shown. The box
> relationships lost. Virtually useless

Here is a fairly simple basic style of your page, no author css:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/masonSansLotsOfStyles.html>

Just a quick removal of a few stylistic things of yours.

--
dorayme

masonc

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 3:33:55 AM8/24/15
to
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:23:25 +1000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:

>In article <9l7ltatuf1pg30jne...@4ax.com>,
> masonc <mas...@frontal-lobe.info> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 14:01:43 +1000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>...
>
>> >Now I want to make a point about your website. In your case your
>> >(author) given styles are not very good and the plain view would
>> >surely be better. But, further, in your case, to get a *plain* view,
>> >remove all CSS, that includes all the references to CSS sheets and all
>> >the style attributes you have all over the HTML. Then you will just
>> >get the content which you are anxious to communicate. The browser will
>> >do a better job of presenting your content than your attempts.
>>
>> I tried that. My browsers do not do a "better job" granted that the
>> content is there. But the content is thrown on the page and useless
>> in a narrow viewport.
>
>It is true, I underestimated the styling you had! In fact you use HTML
>table elements for styling! And, it seems, H1 and H2 elements. So...
>you could get rid of all these and substitute something stylistically
>innocuous like DIV. Get into the spirit of the thing for a while at
>least! <g>
>

"stylistically innocuous like DIv"
It is the markup "style" being criticized, not the design style.
I was reading "style" as artistic design.
I confess, I don't give a ($(*& about markup style
I'm an American Pragmatist, a follower of Charles Peirce (sic)

>> The links are there but not shown.
>
>They will show when you get rid of *all* styles.
>
>Put a <br> before and after all your images, this being not too far
>from the spirit of plainness, so that they don't appear so confusingly
>inline (the default style for the IMG element).
>
>Ah... and about your images, either size them in the html - the unit
>is default px: <img src="" width="" height="" alt=""> or use slightly
>smaller images.
>
An excellent suggestion. God bless you. Much better.
I simple changed width:80% to width:69%;padding:1em;border:none;
(MSIE needed border:none) (% is needed for mobiles)
With the help of my Usenet lovers.

masonc

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 3:39:00 AM8/24/15
to
I don't know what this is, a stroll or a mountain climb.
Let's not pursue. Refer to my other post today and
see the new page you designed:

MasonC http://frontal-lobe.info

tlvp

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 3:51:03 AM8/24/15
to
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:23:25 +1000, dorayme wrote:

> ... the semantics
> of the elements ...

I'm sorry, dorayme: what exactly do you understand by that phrase?
Is an element something like <img> or an opening/closing pair like
<h2>...</h2>, <ul>...</ul>, or <div>...</div> ? If so, what can possibly be
the *semantics* of such a thing?

(Grammar or Usage or even Syntax I could understand, but Semantics? Only
things with meanings can be analyzed using semantics. What am I missing?)

Sorry to appear so thick, or to be just trolling, but I just don't get it.

Thanks, therefore (I hope), for as patient and clear an explanation as
you've just given to poor masonc (who really *does* deserve better than
certain others here have been dishing out to him).

dorayme

unread,
Aug 24, 2015, 4:36:22 AM8/24/15
to
In article <bjh0pzadstc6.1k...@40tude.net>,
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 16:23:25 +1000, dorayme wrote:
>
> > ... the semantics
> > of the elements ...
>
> I'm sorry, dorayme: what exactly do you understand by that phrase?
> Is an element something like <img> or an opening/closing pair like
> <h2>...</h2>, <ul>...</ul>, or <div>...</div> ? If so, what can possibly be
> the *semantics* of such a thing?
>

Yes, an element is what an author uses when he uses tags. If he uses
<p>...</p> he is using a paragraph element. If he uses the tag <img
...>, he is using an image element. They are called these things
because there was an idea, which still has *some* merit, that they are
suitable for placing paragraphs and images onto the viewport or page.

In my own view the use of most of the elements was because of their
default styles (if you don't add any CSS styles, the browser will,
behind the scenes, use a default set). You can use a DIV or anything
really, even an <a> to make a paragraph (taken as the simple idea of a
set of continuous sentences hopefully containing a unitary theme,
separated top and bottom by a pause or line space) by setting your own
styles and the visual visitor to your site will be none the wiser. But
why bother?

Best to use a <p> because browsers will style it roughly how most of
us want it. You can tweak or add or adjust the style as you want but
you get a head start from the communal practice of browsers agreeing
on the defaults. <p> means a paragraph element because it is the
element that default styles to how we mostly want paragraphs to look.

As for semantics, we all know or should know that there have been some
big changes in how the most advanced and sophisticated web authors,
those with more than a mere practical bent, rather reflective people
(like J. Korpela), have come to be disenchanted with the former rather
glorious idea of semantic markup (patience tlvp, I'm coming to it) and
are now taking a far more practical view of web design. This does not
mean that because they are disenchanted with the former gospel of the
semantic markup and the separation of content and style, they have
lost all sensibility of some of the practical benefits of these
distinctions or are blind to bad design.

Semantic markup is simply marking up your page with the elements that
best fit in meaning what you are laying down. If it is a paragraph,
use a P, if it is a list, use an UL or OL and LIs. If you have a main
heading, use an H1, and subheadings depending on the logical order of
their meanings, intention, use H2, H3 on down as they become more and
more sub. If anything this is good author practice because it is a
rough guide to how to proceed.

You *can* use, say, mostly DIVs (the element that you use when you
don't really have a better more focussed element) and style the
various instances to look or sound the way you want but life is easier
if you get a head start and use as much as possible reliable elements
that are intended for a particular purpose (meaning, semantics).

Look, I'm just typing here quickly and not writing an essay. Hope this
helps a bit.


> (Grammar or Usage or even Syntax I could understand, but Semantics? Only
> things with meanings can be analyzed using semantics. What am I missing?)
>
> Sorry to appear so thick, or to be just trolling, but I just don't get it.
>

Don't worry tlvp, everyone knows you are a troll, I am a resident
troll too. We all are to various extents.

> Thanks, therefore (I hope), for as patient and clear an explanation as
> you've just given to poor masonc (who really *does* deserve better than
> certain others here have been dishing out to him).

--
dorayme

tlvp

unread,
Aug 25, 2015, 2:01:49 AM8/25/15
to
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:36:17 +1000, dorayme summarized:

> ... use as much as possible reliable elements
> that are intended for a particular purpose (meaning, semantics).

Well, it'd be nice, then, if each element's documentation told what purpose
that element served. Even nicer if it defined the term describing the
purpose in the few cases that a purpose is described. Nicer still if it
told whether the element was of block or of in-line type.

For example: <HR>. I'm told that defines a horizontal rule. Well, I'm all
for rules, and regulations, and law and order, and such, but what makes a
rule *horizontal*? are there *vertical rules? A rule can be broad or narrow
in its scope or applicability, but what can be meant by its height? or
width? The semantics of the word "rule" is all over the map!

Oh, it didn't mean rule in the regulation, law, or order sense, it meant
the sort of line that you might have drawn with a straight-edge or ruler?
Well, that was a bit counter-intuitive for me, non-obvious syntax.

Same for <DIV>. I try to invest in stocks that pay dividends. I know how to
perform short and long division. I've learned enough about the grammar or
syntax of the DIV tag to be aware of how much stylistic markup can be
injected into it by suitable attributes and values. But I fail to spot any
semantics for DIV or any semantics of relevance to the usage of DIV for any
of the few real English words I can think of that start with the letters
D-i-v-... (diversion? diversity? diverticulosis? dividend? division?
divisor? reciDIVism? Diva? divine? My primary reference manual says:

: <DIV>...</DIV> Usage: Creates user-defined block-level structure to the document.

Do you see anything redolent of semantic information in that?

OK: inline stuff. <B>, <I>, <U>, I get: bold, italic, underlined. Fine. But
<STRONG>? <EM>? -- seemingly completely indeterminate in their effect.

I give up. I think I largely side with masonc, in finding nothing
compellingly semantic about most HTML tags, bar <IMG> and <TABLE> and
<BLOCKQUOTE> (whose use -- well the last two anyway-- most folks here tend
to discourage, though I find them invaluable :-) ).

I'll stop, though, before I get accused of trollery. Cheers, and, as
always, thanks, -- tlvp

dorayme

unread,
Aug 25, 2015, 8:29:17 AM8/25/15
to
In article <ycnkuamqgz8y.1i5uiivwwujp1$.d...@40tude.net>,
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:36:17 +1000, dorayme summarized:
>
> > ... use as much as possible reliable elements
> > that are intended for a particular purpose (meaning, semantics).
>

Basically, the suggestions I gave were not for complete novices. It is
for people who know a bit about things, mainly who have a practical
knowledge of how the default styles are handled in browsers.

Surprising as it might seem, the main value of using a bit of semantic
markup, given that the former dream of strict semantic markup has
faded, is to save you the trouble of starting from scratch with
styling!

Look at the main elements I mentioned. No need to overthink these
things or exaggerate.

--
dorayme
0 new messages