I won't say it's perfect, but if you wrote div col 1 div col 2
and then you wanted col 2 to be on the left of col 1, you'd write the css differently then you would the forward method.
>This looks like a ridiculous statement to me. But please, explain further what you want him to do.
Well look at it this way <html><body><div container><stuff><div container></body></html>
What is it that div container is doing so well that body isn't already doing as a binding tag?
> I find it comical that you go on about "good HTML" and then point to CSS Zen Garden.
I will have to disagree. CSS Zen Garden reads perfectly and logically without css. It's something that 90% of sites are missing out there. And although the HTML is inextricably bound up with the presentation as you write, it is 100% readable by Netscape 1.0.
He uses HTML to describe the data that is being wrapped in the tags, and the information that is grouped by divs are grouped by the fact that the content is related, not by the fact that the data should be visually sitting beside each other.
While there is excessive usage of <span> tags written throughout, it was a design decision to enable css artists to replace text with images, or allow them to get around browser quirks that are challenges that CSS still face today.
At the cost of a lot of flexibility. Most people, when faced with a change in design like this, simply reorder their HTML. So perhaps "demand" was hyperbole, but CSS does still push developers to rewrite their HTML when design changes happen.
> Well look at it this way <html><body><div container><stuff><div container></body></html>
The container is providing a hook for layout information that the body tag cannot. For instance, if I wanted the body background color to be blue and the container's background to be white. Also, if you want your content to be restricted in width, it's a lot easier to wrap it with a div than deal with the lack of the > operator in IE 6.
> CSS Zen Garden reads perfectly and logically without css.
I didn't say that it's hard to read. I said that by the standards community's definition it is not good HTML, because it mixes content and presentation.
Just to be clear, I think that "bad HTML" is pretty much the only practical way to go right now. So, I don't have a problem with the way CSS Zen Garden uses wrappers, nor do I have a problem with the wrappers in this blog post. But you are criticizing one and making excuses for the other.
I don't doubt that cost/time is a factor. As programmers, we would all love to do without the additional overhead of coding practices, and for an unlimited number of reasons.
I realize that css isn't the best language in the world. But if it was intuitive to write css forwards and backwards regardless of document flow -- this wouldn't be a discussion topic. The question is the amount of time invested to learn it.
>The container is providing a hook for layout information that the body tag cannot. For instance, if I wanted the body background color to be blue and the container's background to be white. Also, if you want your content to be restricted in width, it's a lot easier to wrap it with a div than deal with the lack of the > operator in IE 6.
This is true. I was looking purely from layout perspective, but yea, body bleeds background-color and image everywhere regardless of limiting the width.
>Just to be clear, I think that "bad HTML" is pretty much the only practical way to go right now. So, I don't have a problem with the way CSS Zen Garden uses wrappers, nor do I have a problem with the wrappers in this blog post. But you are criticizing one and making excuses for the other.
Practical -- yes I don't disagree. With the way browsers interpret things differently, it's just about the only way you can get compatibility across the board.
Though you are right that I criticizing one and making excuses for the other: at least one follows a clear stated goal -- html describes the content, css draws the presentation. Provided items are added to make do with incompatibility issues, but at least at the core we can see that HTML is purely being used to describe the content. Allowing _enough_ separation required for programmers to be nearly clueless of a designer's job.
The other has no such goal; creating a massive grey area between the programmers and the designers.
Quite right. The argument, as I see it, is that it's much more practical to use the best cross-platform tool for the job, which in many cases is tables and not CSS. He's arguing that it's not worth the time.
> at least one follows a clear stated goal -- html describes the content, css draws the presentation.
This isn't even close to CSS Zen Garden's stated goal. Its goal is to show what is possible to do using CSS. It's goal is to be "A demonstration of what can be accomplished visually through CSS-based design." There's nothing about content/presentation separation anywhere on the site.
> but at least at the core we can see that HTML is purely being used to describe the content
That's certainly not what I see at all, especially at CSS Zen Garden, if that's what you're still referring to here.
> Allowing _enough_ separation required for programmers to be nearly clueless of a designer's job.
If you mean programmer == HTML, and designer == CSS, then this is simply wrong.
When I view source csszengarden this is what I see: <div id="intro"> <div id="pageHeader"> <h1> <h2><acronym>
<div id="quickSummary">
<p class="p1"><acronym>
<p class="p2">
<div id="premable">
<h3>
<p class="p1">
<p class="p2">
<p class="p3">All I see are information grouped by content. The ids, and class tags describe the information. The paragraphs are ordered p1,p2,p3, because for them to make sense they have to be in that order.
Page header, quick summary and preamble are all items that belong to an introduction.
I think it's great.
> There are more classes and extraneous tags than needed, and in a real world situation, it's more likely that it would be much leaner.
and this
> <!--extra div for flexibility - this list will probably be the trickiest spot you'll deal with --> <div id="linkList2">
and this
> <!-- These extra divs/spans may be used as catch-alls to add extra imagery. --> <!-- Add a background image to each and use width and height to control sizing, place with absolute positioning --> <div id="extraDiv1"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv2"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv3"><span></span></div> <div id="extraDiv4"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv5"><span></span></div><div id="extraDiv6"><span></span></div>
The HTML guy could not be "nearly clueless" about the designer's needs if CSS Zen Garden's flexibility is what you're looking for.
But your whole argument is on the basis points of 2 commented divs? <!-- These extra divs/spans may be used as catch-alls to add extra imagery. -->
Add extra imagery -- it's posted at the bottom and away from the content. It's not like it's messing with what the programmer needs to develop. You could have easily have removed those tags and only the designs that decided to take use of them would get hurt -- but it is optional, not a requirement.
<!--extra div for flexibility - this list will probably be the trickiest spot you'll deal with --> I thought we discussed that browsers incompatibilities are the reason for this.
The core of the content is listed at the top of the HTML page which is organized properly.
TBH: I would hardly call this level of adding extra markup anywhere close to other HTML where the presentation is completely ingrained.
But it's HTML, and should therefore should BE content. But it's not; it's presentation.
> I thought we discussed that browsers incompatibilities are the reason for this.
You seem to be missing my point. If CSS, as implemented NOW, worked as advertised and offered a way to separate content from presentation while retaining flexibility, then we'd have no argument. I'd happily be using it for what is intended. You just can't do that now, and I'm tired of people telling me that I can.
> I would hardly call this level of adding extra markup anywhere close to other HTML where the presentation is completely ingrained.
Of course it's not completely ingrained. But I want it to be able to be completely separated before I'm going to join your camp.
I meant this by reading http://www.csszengarden.com/zengarden-sample.html
not reading the html markup, but what the markup gets converted to when there is no css involved. Even the earliest of mobile devices can read this web page because the information still makes sense just reading it from top to bottom.
If CSS Zen Garden was truly mixing presentation with content, you wouldn't be able to read that link above as easily as you can.
But you started that part of you message with
> The HTML won't make any sense if you start reversing it
?
> If CSS Zen Garden was truly mixing presentation with content, you wouldn't be able to read that link above as easily as you can.
I'm sorry, but using wrapper divs for purely presentational purposes is mixing presentation and content. The whole concept has to do with how the code is written.
I thought what I written was clear, but I guess it's coming off as vague. When you view an html page without presentation the logical flow of all the information should be based on the content. Therefore the tags and what is written you would never reverse the order, because the content will no longer make sense right?
So when you're doing something like div #header div #col left div #col middle div #col right div #footer
You've grouped content in the form of header, left, middle right, footer. You can't reverse it, it's stuck because of the way it's been written. Every site redesign will require an HTML redesign each and every time.
If you grouped your content in the form of (like csszengarden has done) Introduction About the site Site Navigation Sub Menu Content Corporate Info
Then ONLY the CSS needs to change. Which is why there are 300+ different and dramatic css layouts on csszengarden, and yet only 1 html. If presentation was truly mixed in there, something would have locked them all into looking a certain way - but as you can see, all the designs are different.
edit: Furthermore, you speak as if the author is criticizing floats, but he is not. He is criticizing the attitude that tables are to be avoided for layout at all costs, when there simply is not a simple, implemented, cross browser way to replace them. Floats are simple the closest thing we can practically use, so he uses them for comparison.
I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.
> Floats are simple the closest thing we can practically use
Furthermore, I did not define the "available subset" as floats. I'm saying that floats are the best available tool in that available subset for implementing table-like behavior. And yeah, they suck for that purpose, but _there is no better alternative_.
If you still don't understand that, then I'm afraid there's no use in continuing this discussion.
Nobody is talking about putting headers after the content they're introducing. The author is talking about a situation where it makes sense to order the markup one way, but CSS demands it to be done a different, not easily readable way. Which does happen sometimes.
> Why the author of the article is using a div container to wrap them all when a body tag exists is beyond me.
This looks like a ridiculous statement to me. But please, explain further what you want him to do.
I find it comical that you go on about "good HTML" and then point to CSS Zen Garden, where the HTML is inextricably bound up with the presentation (ie, adding wrapper elements to allow for flexibility in styling). CSS Zen Garden is an example of HTML as it should not have to be.