Re: Feedback on 1.3

Jarkko wrote:

If you make a new red theme, you need to make a new arrow image because the one in the oxygen style is blue. It's a minor pain in the butt. Although that applies to all of the new style images.

Yup that's the only good argument I've seen against graphic arrow. However, I'm sure Paul with provide with a gray version, the source; and I'm confident someone will create some kind of snippet to generate one with the appropriate color with one click.

Re: Feedback on 1.3

The arrow is one of those situations where a 50% transparent black and 50% transparent white 24bit png would be super useful. Too bad...

28

Re: Feedback on 1.3

Paul wrote:

Since in the real world divs and spans have no real semantic meaning then you cannot say they are semantically incorrect, they actually don't alter the semantics one jot.

I didn't say that.

Paul wrote:

People confuse the use of divs and spans with semantics. If you think there are too many divs and spans thats an argument about markup style, nothing to do with semantics unless you think a div or span has been used in place of a semantic tag.

Exactly, DIV's in header are used in place of semantic tags, so it is a semantic issue.

Your logic is self-defeating since if you are using zero-semantic DIV's around the content, your HTML document is also zero-semantic. DIVs are just grouping elements, they shouldn't contain text alone. Semantics comes first, then you can add necessary DIV/SPAN tags for layout and styling.

Paul wrote:

What is or is not a paragph is also a matter of opinion. The board title could just be one word and one word is a text snippet not a paragraph. Anybody care to suggest what the semantically appropriate tag is for an isolated word of text thats not a heading?

Board title can be H1 title, but since it's smarter to use H1 tags for topic titles, a paragraph is OK.

Paul wrote:

As for a text breadcrumb divider being easier to style. The text would be in the markup or the language file but the arrow is merely a background image so the argument is nonensene.

You can use around that arrow a SPAN. :)

<p id="path"><a href="#">First level</a> <span>></span> <a href="#">Second level</a> <span>></span> Third level</p>

#path SPAN {
    margin: 0 .5em;
    color: #f00;
}

Re: Feedback on 1.3

Taimar wrote:

Maybe, but PunBB has bigger semantic problems in his code, DIV/SPAN overuse in example.

I touched on this when looking at the forum for accessibility. Yes there are a lot of <div>'s, and I may have talked Paul into replacing one. However some are necessary, because of the way things work. With user entered text going into some of these places, you can't surround it by anything other than a <div>.

<span> use is aplenty maybe too much so. But they have obviously thought way ahead. By inserting these now it makes developing themes/styles via CSS a lot easier with hooks available where needed. Making the basic output full of possibilities means that less people will be tempted to try and change core files.

my mind is on a permanent tangent
byUsers forum

30

Re: Feedback on 1.3

Rich Pedley wrote:

I touched on this when looking at the forum for accessibility. Yes there are a lot of <div>'s, and I may have talked Paul into replacing one. However some are necessary, because of the way things work. With user entered text going into some of these places, you can't surround it by anything other than a <div>.

Board title should not contain HTML, so a paragraph can be used.

Rich Pedley wrote:

<span> use is aplenty maybe too much so. But they have obviously thought way ahead. By inserting these now it makes developing themes/styles via CSS a lot easier with hooks available where needed. Making the basic output full of possibilities means that less people will be tempted to try and change core files.

Yes, future-proofing for themes sounds reasonable.