Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, SecretSquirrel, just brew it!
Kevin wrote:Is there a reason you're restricting yourself to the HTML strict doctype?
). Just want to see what the fuss is all about, and what can I do by going further than transitional.
The product name of this is <span class="product_name">My Product ®</span>. Blah blah blah...Flying Fox wrote:Where did you see that span is disallowed anyway? Sure looks to me like it's still in in all the "difference between strict and transitional" pages I see. You just aren't supposed to drop it or other similar tags straight into the body etc. Alternatives would be to style appropriate strong or em tags accordingly, and they would be contextually more meaningful as well.As for SPAN uses, well, I typically use it to look alike the styles are more contextual:Kind of making inline styles without using "ugly" (IMHO) b's and u's. Then I will define the class in my stylesheet.Code: Select allThe product name of this is <span class="product_name">My Product ®</span>. Blah blah blah...
And as pete_roth said, div usually involves a break so inlining is no good.
madlemming wrote:What's your validation target? And also, when was span depreciated... I've been using it in HTML 4.01 strict and xhtml 1.1 strict and it validates fine. With a quick skim I can't find where in those specs span is marked as depreciated.
Also, you can force div's or any other element to display inline by styling it as "display: inline;"
em.red { color:red; }
This bit of text is <em class="red">RED</em>.
madlemming wrote:I thought Div forced the paragraph break anyhow, regardless of the inline property or not.
You're right, setting it to inline gets rid of the line-break after, but not the line-break before. Bizzare.
mattsteg wrote:Yeah, that's basically what I found out, from those "differences" pages. So are you saying that the latest and greatest specs on Strict allows the tag now?Where did you see that span is disallowed anyway? Sure looks to me like it's still in in all the "difference between strict and transitional" pages I see. You just aren't supposed to drop it or other similar tags straight into the body etc.
excession wrote:Doh! Thanks! Goes to show I am really not a web guy (never read any books, just self-taught and the odd web tutorial here and there). Should've gone back to C/C++/C#... until I hit ASP.NET anyways. So many times I have to clean up WYSIWYG messes left behind by people who are worse than me (both HTML and C#).what's wrong withCode: Select allem.red { color:red; }Code: Select allThis bit of text is <em class="red">RED</em>.
and turn off boldening and italicizing in the CSS.
Flying Fox wrote:My interpretation is that they want all your text, chunkc of text, etc. wrapped up in <p>, <div>, etc. They don't want text straight in the body and they thus don't want tags used to format inline text not in a <p>, <div> etc. That doesn't mean that the tags themselves are deprecated. FWIW <em> has the same new restrictions on it.Yeah, that's basically what I found out, from those "differences" pages. So are you saying that the latest and greatest specs on Strict allows the tag now?
mattsteg wrote:Just looked it up again. <em> is no go as well. Damn.Flying Fox wrote:My interpretation is that they want all your text, chunkc of text, etc. wrapped up in <p>, <div>, etc. They don't want text straight in the body and they thus don't want tags used to format inline text not in a <p>, <div> etc. That doesn't mean that the tags themselves are deprecated. FWIW <em> has the same new restrictions on it.Yeah, that's basically what I found out, from those "differences" pages. So are you saying that the latest and greatest specs on Strict allows the tag now?
Flying Fox wrote:I keep trying to say this, but I guess I'm not being clear enough. You can use them, they just shouldn't be child elements in the body. All your text should be in <p>, <div>, etc. tags within the body. Saying not to use a laundry list of tags as children of <body> is just the consequence of that.Just looked it up again. <em> is no go as well. Damn.
So what can you do if you want Strict but still want inline tagging of texts within the body then? Semantically it is a valid case. In a document if you are referring to "keywords", then you should be able to highlight them inline?
mattsteg wrote:From what I read is that they said it cannot be a "child" of body. So if there is more than 1 levels of "inheritance" it is ok?I keep trying to say this, but I guess I'm not being clear enough. You can use them, they just shouldn't be child elements in the body. All your text should be in <p>, <div>, etc. tags within the body. Saying not to use a laundry list of tags as children of <body> is just the consequence of that.
All they're saying is don't stick plain (or visually styled) text directly in the <body>, encapsulate it in a semantically meaningful way.
<body>
<p>
Blah blah <span>special</span>.
</p>
</body>
Flying Fox wrote:Well, since there are only restrictions listed for the tags (implying they still exist) and they're not useful anywhere except in the body, I kinda figured it had to work that way. Definately confusing the way it's presented though.My initial thought was in the entire chain, not just one level down. Guess I was reading the stuff wrong then. Wasn't a serious research anyway as I knew I will be using transitional for the forseeable future.
