|
|
Posted by Joe on 10/12/06 01:19
In article <1160479354.452010.102590@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
dingbat@codesmiths.com says...
>
> Joe (GKF) wrote:
>
> > HTML comes in two basic types; Block and Inline.
>
> The problem with that is that you're (reasonably) categorised two
> values that apply to three distinct properties and (unreasonably)
> described these as a single property.
>
> "HTML elements have a 'type' [block / inline]" is a useful intermediate
> step as a tutorial because it introduces the concept of these distinct
> states. However it's only a crude approximation - the element actually
> has a "type that it is", a "types it can contain" and a "CSS display
> behaviour" (which is easily changed by CSS). If you teach this concept
> as the single property applying to all, then you have to make it clear
> pretty soon afterwards that you've used a simplification, then to
> explain further.
>
> I use this simple explanation in teaching courses, but I wouldn't use
> it on a web page without expanding it properly further down that same
> page. In particular note that the HTML behaviour is fixed by the DTD,
> but that the CSS behaviour is flexible. This is why we make complex
> inline lists from <li> ("block elements") and making them look like
> inline, rather than by taking already-inline <span>s and squeezing
> invalid block elements into them.
>
Absolutely agree on all points. <li> is a hybrid in any case. I use it
to show that the sandwich analogy doesn't always apply.
>
> Toby's somewhat pathological case of "bizarre nesting via object" is
> IMHO not such a big deal. It's genuine, but sufficiently rare that I
> wouldn't worry about that one.
>
Toby's a clever guy. You just have to know when to take him seriously.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|