Re: [Chicken-users] Centralized documentation

[Alejandro Forero Cuervo]

> You misunderstood my point.  It wasn't about the nesting, it was about the
> tags you're using.  It would be more semantically correct to do something
> like this:
> <ul id="actions">
>   <li>
>     <a href="xsvnwiki-atom/stream-wiki">XML</a>
>   </li>
>   <li>
>     <a href="foo">Edit</a>
>   </li>
> </ul>

Agreed. :-)

> The id of "info-box" is not very semantic.  There's no info in the info-box!
> (it only has links)  The fact that it's a box is only visually correct in
> the case of a normal browser.  If you'd use a screenreader or
> braille-terminal or simply a non-CSS aware browser, it wouldn't even _be_
> a box.  At least, it wouldn't be displayed as such.

Right.

> It contains a list of actions you can apply to the current page, so a
> different id would be better.  Also, since it's a list of things to do,
> you would do better to put it in a list.  Observe that the nesting depth
> is the same as your <div><span><a>...</a></span></div>, but just by looking
> at the HTML (which is supposed to be purely the information you're supplying
> and should not include ANYTHING that has to do with how it's presented) you
> can see much better what is intended.

Agreed.

> Just up the major version number and tell people clearly about it.
> People who work in the web industry would welcome this change with open
> arms, I'm sure.

Yes, at some point we should definitely do this.

> Perhaps an idea is to provide a parameter for backward compatibility, that
> injects these pointless classes everywhere you used to have them if it is
> set to true, and set it to false by default?  Then phase it out over one
> or two major releases.

Right.  Good idea.

> The whole point of naming _classes_ is that you want to style a whole
> CLASS of things that have the same meaning, even if their html happens
> to be slightly different.

Right.  Good point.

> You're welcome.  I hope I managed to convince you of the use of
> semantically correct HTML and to use it in svnwiki.

You certainly did, I agree with all the points you raised.  At some
point I will start cleaning up the HTML we produce, probably with the
generate-backwards-compatible-markup flag you propose.

Thank you for your message.

Alejo.
http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/