Re: [docbook-apps] Simpler XHTML output

["Bob Stayton" <bobs at sagehill dot net>]

> My view.
>   Keep it simple, very simple. Omit all the class attributes, nested
> divisions, etc etc.
>   I.e. all content is part of the normal flow.

I don't understand how you will apply styles if there is no way to select
content in CSS.  It will certainly be simple, but it won't be styled.  8^)

I guess I thought the goal of this project was to create an XHTML that could
be completely controlled by a CSS.  In the current XHTML/HTML output, that
is not the case because some styles are hard coded in deference to those who
don't normally use CSS.  But if we create an XHTML that is explicitly
dependent on CSS for styling, then we can use the full power of CSS.

I agree that complexity should be moved from the XHTML to the CSS, but we
need the hooks in the XHTML to apply the CSS, no?   The div elements serve a
purpose in creating a structure in the XHTML that CSS can work with.  Since
CSS styles can cascade down through the structure, you can set styles at the
appropriate level and override them as needed in lower levels.  I agree that
we should eliminate div elements that don't serve that purpose, but I can't
see removing them all.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
DocBook Consulting
bobs@sagehill.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Pawson" <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
To: "Rene Hache" <rene.hache@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>; "Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>;
"Docbook-Apps" <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Simpler XHTML output


> On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 09:54 -0700, Rene Hache wrote:
> > Jirka,
> >
> > I don't know enough about programming to respond to your concern over
> > XHTML 1.1 so I don't see any problems going for XHTML 1.0. Any
> > problems going with the "strict" recommendation, or should we stick
> > with "transitional".
>
> strict is 'simpler' than transitional. That would be an easier target.
>
> >
> > > > 5. The only DIV to be created inside the main content will be for
> > > > admonitions, sidebar and highlights.
> > >
> > > Why? That way you will not be able to control rendering of whole
section
> > > or titlepage for example. Current stylesheets wrap these structures
> > > inside <div class="section"> or <div class="titlepage"> respectively.
> >
> > >From a web standards perspective, the only real reason to add DIVs is
> > when you need separate content from the normal flow.
>
> My view.
>   Keep it simple, very simple. Omit all the class attributes, nested
> divisions, etc etc.
>   I.e. all content is part of the normal flow.
>
> >
> > For instance, with all due respect to developped the stylesheets, I
> > don't understand the logic of using the <div class="titlepage"> or the
> > <div class="section">.
>
> >  If anything, controlling style and
> > rendering gets increasingly confusing as you add DIVs. While I am
> > certain that we will add DIVs as this process develops, for the moment
> > I would rather strip all DIVs as a "guiding principle" unless there is
> > an obvious need to separate the content from the flow.
>
> Agree. The simpler the better.
>
> regards DaveP.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org