Semantics, Markup, and Standards

First, some recent articles about semantics, markup, and standards:

New Reference on Semantics, HTML, XHTML, and Structure

I’ve posted a new article and reference, Semantics, HTML, XHTML, and Structure, that provides some basics of using good HTML structure for your documents, such as using the P element rather than the BR element for paragraphs, using heading elements for headings rather than faking your markup. CSS provides the means to achieve the visual presentation you have in mind while using the appropriate HTML recommended by W3C.

Semantics, HTML, XHTML, and Structure is not intended to be exhaustive by any means. It’s intended as a jumping off point for learning how to create a structurally solid HTML/XHTML page with the appropriate elements and attributes recommended by W3C.

Related post: Don’t Fake Your Markup: Accessibility Issues for CSS.

06:46 pm, pdt 1 September, 2003 Comments, Trackbacks (3) ·';}?>

Categories: CSS, Colophon, Development, Standards


Comments, Trackbacks: 3 so far. Add yours!

  1. Cookiecrook's Accessibility Internet Rally: 2003 Training is packed with helpful information about how to create an accessible website and why it matters. You'll find help for CSS, JavaScript, Flash, and more. Be sure to also check out the section on S...

    08 Oct, 2003Trackback from Brainstorms and Raves

    trackback #1 permalink ·'; else echo '·'; ?>

  2. Short of an exegesis in the philosophy of language, I want to simply point out that semantically correct markup is something of a misnomer. Neither the HTML tag nor a CSS equivalent (e.g., '.whatever {font-weight: bold}') are semantically whole. Rather, they both are (or at least can be) syntactically correct and that correctness is effectively prescribed by the W3C (but such is only a prescription for browsers, as we all know, often go their own way). What is rendered is semantically the same, namely a bold bit of copy and the meaning of that copy, within a given context, is something pragmatically imparted. Never mind what’s under the hood.

    01:21 pm, pdt23 October, 2003Comment by David D.

    comment #2 permalink ·'; else echo '·'; ?>

  3. Understood. But, wax on, wax off.... circles left or circles right. Whatever. What matters is the end. What is the point of language really, if what is said communicates a message, and that message is received? Can we move on?

    I just better never hear you say you’re anxious to get your new iPod, unless you mean it.

    02:37 pm, pdt23 October, 2003Comment by sean m

    comment #3 permalink ·'; else echo '·'; ?>

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to all who participated.

*/ ?>