|
|
Posted by Andy Dingley on 08/13/05 17:18
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:09:54 +0100, David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>dingbat@codesmiths.com wrote:
>
>>> Transitional is outdated.
>
>> Why? It isn't - it still has valid functions that Strict can't do.
>
>I can only think of one
The most obvious one would be <a target="..." ...>
>> There are far more cases for a generalised "heading" than HTML's rigid
>> 1..6 hierarchy. Besides which, the OP might even be aiming for ISO-HTML
>> or a similar local standard where "headings" have an additonal validity
>> constraint applied such that the must appear in strict order.
>
>So why not use them in strict order?
It's often difficult - especially with dynamically generated code - to
know what level the current header is. I was working on a network
browser app (some more AJAX) recently which displayed a lot of nested
hierarchical "friend of a friend" information, with headers marked up
through <div class="foo">. Click on one of these and you navigated to
that node, with the previously "higher" levels now as subordinates.
Where's <h3> in that lot ? It's entirely dynamic.
The real issue though was that the OP had a reasonable question (how to
control width) and instead of either answering or keeping quiet, a
couple of people saw it as an excuse to demonstrate their limited
knowledge of _something_ by flaunting an entirely trivial nit-pick on an
irrelevant point.
A posted "Question" is a request for information, not an invitation to
display your knowledge of typography and the letter Q.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|