Comments on: Markup debates: rank priorities, code accordingly

By: Design debates: it’s time to throw curveballs | Wisdump

Design debates: it’s time to throw curveballs | Wisdump — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:31:38 +0000

[...] we’re not spending time debating on the right way to code websites—CSS, tables, and all—we’re probably stressing over the details that go into the [...]

By: The Design Community Killed the Community (or maybe we just get what we give) | Good Dog Creative

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:31:25 +0000

[...] two different articles from two different sites posted around the same time. First, an article from wisdump.com titled “Markup Debates: rank priorities, code accordingly”. This article offers [...]

By: Stuart

Stuart — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:19:57 +0000

I agree with your question about the number of h1s on a page being more important. Have a look at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.5, specifically:

“A heading element briefly describes the topic of the section it introduces.”

And the current (3rd Feb 2009) draft HTML5 spec. says:

“These elements define headers for their sections.”
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-h1-h2-h3-h4-h5-and-h6-elements

There’s more stuff on the HTML5 page about headers, but nowhere does it mention that you should only use one h1.

So, perhaps the W3C is a useful ‘god’ to quote in this instance! :)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:25:58 +0000

For me, the page title and not the site title should be an an h1, unless you are using HTML5 in which case there is no argument.

Non-sematic classes are fine if you will never reuse the html, but I use standard HTML whenever I start a site, irrespective of the end layout so calling something left just makes no sense. Classes are not identifying though so I don’t really think it matters one jot what anyone decides to call them.

I don’t consider myself a purist, but I think I am entitled to make some assumptions about anyone that uses tables for layout purposes. However bad somone thinks the CSS problems are they are all relatively easy to overcome. We know this because we have all had to do it. “cool” doesn’t come into it. There may not be one way to build a website but there is one way to mark it up and it is clearly defined.

By: Bithalter Webzeuglinks 005′09 | Webzeugkoffer Webdesign

Bithalter Webzeuglinks 005′09 | Webzeugkoffer Webdesign — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:38:22 +0000

[...] Markup debates: rank priorities, code accordingly: Zum Thema Prioritäten setzen. Webstandards? SEO? Effizienz? Reines Gewissen? Vernunft? (via CSS Globe) [...]

By: rahnas

rahnas — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:45:06 +0000

Nice discussion.
I think you might read following articles too on the same subject.
1. Round one: logo vs. title inside
http://www.htmlremix.com/review/five-reason-why-you-should-put-logo-as-an-image

2.Round two: generic vs. semantic CSS classes
http://www.htmlremix.com/seo/microformats-class-names-and-future-seo

3.Round three: CSS vs. tables (again?)
You have nothing to read again.

Thanks
Rahnas

By: David Horodecki

David Horodecki — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:05:12 +0000

About tables used as layout: I think you know this very well, but the whole thing about not using them for layout it’s not for us (people who can read using eyes) but for people who “discover” internet in different way.

I agree that some CSS trolls are pointing their rights in inappropriate way. I was one of them. And yes, it was stupid. We must educate not extort.

I don’t think the source code is so important as long as it’s doing his job.
But if you look at this from the side of developer – it should be important for him and his team to make this code readable.