Sure I see it. 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…
Programmer == backend html // designer = AI/PS/CSS cutter, and css writer When I view source csszengarden this is what I see: <div id="intro"> <div id="pageHeader"> <h1>…
>But you started that part of you message with > The HTML won't make any sense if you start reversing it >? I thought what I written was clear, but I guess it's coming off as vague. When you view an html…
>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. I meant this by reading…
>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…
CSS doesn't demand it to be done differently though. If the HTML is written with a different flow the CSS will need to be written to accompany that. I won't say it's perfect, but if you wrote div col 1 div col 2 and…
The arguments presented seem like a half truth to me. 1 HTML multiple CSS not 1 CSS multiple HTML The whole concept should be that HTML should be written to have 100% accessibility across all readers (browsers and…
Sure I see it. 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…
Programmer == backend html // designer = AI/PS/CSS cutter, and css writer When I view source csszengarden this is what I see: <div id="intro"> <div id="pageHeader"> <h1>…
>But you started that part of you message with > The HTML won't make any sense if you start reversing it >? I thought what I written was clear, but I guess it's coming off as vague. When you view an html…
>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. I meant this by reading…
>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…
CSS doesn't demand it to be done differently though. If the HTML is written with a different flow the CSS will need to be written to accompany that. I won't say it's perfect, but if you wrote div col 1 div col 2 and…
The arguments presented seem like a half truth to me. 1 HTML multiple CSS not 1 CSS multiple HTML The whole concept should be that HTML should be written to have 100% accessibility across all readers (browsers and…