Discuss the use of html elements

Originally Posted by Gille Yet, you're site is a marketing ploy as you say yourself...

I don't get you.

My site is congruent with myself - I do cut the cr*p and lay down the facts.

The whole "I'm the best" thing is the marketing side, although I am pretty good

And like I said Andrew, how about picking on a new piece of work, rather than an older piece using older methods.

I've been doing this for much longer than you, I reckon, so please don't try to tell me what makes good code, or telling me to check more than one thing to see if it is good code

"Experience" doesn't mean anything. I know plenty of people who have been doing this since HTML started, and they are rubbish. You are being arrogant right now - which is exactly what you *****ed about me being earlier. So that's a bit hypocritical of you Andrew.

VimF has a valid point. Clean, semantic HTML doesn't mean it renders across all browsers. If anything, CSS matters tons more than the HTML, as it is what makes the site display correctly or not across browsers, ensures it holds together when font size is increased and all that jazz.

All around the Mulberry Bush,
The monkey chased the weasel.
The monkey stopped to pull up his sock,
Pop! goes the weasel.

Sheesh, since when was this topic entitled "question rochow's ability to white HTML"? From looking around (only his most recent projects) it seems he's a pretty competent HTML draughtsman.

As with anything there are odds and sods which I might have done differently but that's not really worth anything at all. Writing HTML isn't a science in the way that there's only one definitive method and conclusion (lets not get into that, it's the best analogy I could think of right now) but it's more of a craft. Someone told to weave a basket might well do a superb job and come out with an amazing wicker basket; it might not be identical to another one made by someone else or even themselves at another time, but it's a great piece of work anyway.

Instead of picking on rochow's (older, newer, middle, whatever) work how about we discuss the use of HTML elements as the topic title suggests? Just an idea. Sure pick examples of good/bad from rochow's or anyone else's portfolio but here isn't the place to have a ****ing contest and declare yourself better than the next person to come along.

Originally Posted by Salathe Sheesh, since when was this topic entitled "question rochow's ability to white HTML"? From looking around (only his most recent projects) it seems he's a pretty competent HTML draughtsman. As with anything there are odds and sods which I might have done differently but that's not really worth anything at all. Writing HTML isn't a science in the way that there's only one definitive method and conclusion (lets not get into that, it's the best analogy I could think of right now) but it's more of a craft. Someone told to weave a basket might well do a superb job and come out with an amazing wicker basket; it might not be identical to another one made by someone else or even themselves at another time, but it's a great piece of work anyway. Instead of picking on rochow's (older, newer, middle, whatever) work how about we discuss the use of HTML elements as the topic title suggests? Just an idea. Sure pick examples of good/bad from rochow's or anyone else's portfolio but here isn't the place to have a ****ing contest and declare yourself better than the next person to come along.

Well the majority of the thread is about it lol, though I must say Andrew jumped the gun to start with and is now nowhere to be seen.

Even off the start there are 2 ways to do a site: floating or positioning. The site can end up with different HTML and yet still look the exact same in the browser.

At the end of the day usability, accessibility, load times and cross-browser compatibility matter more than "OMG you used a span when you should have used em. OMG you suck you n00b" that tons of people love to whine about.

*Crowd shouts* Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! */Crowd Shouting*

Frankly, the way I see it is that difference in coding habits are very concerned with what makes the site most cross-compatible and at the same time quick to load. Also a very important matter is if you ever intend on passing the code to another developer to use. Things like comments to explain why certain things are set the way they are is always good to let the developer know that this web page was made a certain way for a certain reason. Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by rochow Well the majority of the thread is about it lol, though I must say Andrew jumped the gun to start with and is now nowhere to be seen. Even off the start there are 2 ways to do a site: floating or positioning. The site can end up with different HTML and yet still look the exact same in the browser. At the end of the day usability, accessibility, load times and cross-browser compatibility matter more than "OMG you used a span when you should have used em. OMG you suck you n00b" that tons of people love to whine about.

I'm gone because I'm on vacation. I don't have enough time to go through code. I also don't want to continue this on. I know what I know, and that's good enough for me.

The regular way is to write:
And then use absolute positioning to throw <h3></h3> out of the screen if you don't want it to appear. The reason for using <h3></h3> is to let users know what the list stands for when their browser doesn't support CSS.

Originally Posted by Ian08 The regular way is to write: PHP Code: <div id="menu">     <h3>Main Navigation</h3>     <ul>         <li>Test</li>         <li>Test2</li>     </ul> </div>  And then use absolute positioning to throw <h3></h3> out of the screen if you don't want it to appear. The reason for using <h3></h3> is to let users know what the list stands for when their browser doesn't support CSS.

I both:

Disagree
1) Most menus are extremely obvious so having "main navigation" is a complete waste of time
2) Why are you wrapping it in a <div>? Waste of time + code

Agree
1) For some menu's, having a title does help; however, if has to be there so people without CSS can understand the page, it should be there for people with CSS aswell. For example:

- Diablo
- WoW
- Starcraft
- Some other game

What is that a menu of? Who the hell knows, something about games. Too bad anyone with CSS will never know because the title "Games to be released this summer" heading is absolute positioned off the page (not so smart after all)

Now that I actually read what I wrote, I pretty much don't agree with you at all. If it needs a heading, it needs to be there both with and without CSS, whether it be normal text, image replacement, or an image with an alt description.

Originally Posted by rochow I both: Disagree 1) Most menus are extremely obvious so having "main navigation" is a complete waste of time 2) Why are you wrapping it in a <div>? Waste of time + code Agree 1) For some menu's, having a title does help; however, if has to be there so people without CSS can understand the page, it should be there for people with CSS aswell. For example: - Diablo - WoW - Starcraft - Some other game What is that a menu of? Who the hell knows, something about games. Too bad anyone with CSS will never know because the title "Games to be released this summer" heading is absolute positioned off the page (not so smart after all) Now that I actually read what I wrote, I pretty much don't agree with you at all. If it needs a heading, it needs to be there both with and without CSS, whether it be normal text, image replacement, or an image with an alt description.

I forgot to say that not only people without CSS can understand what the menu stands for, but also screen reader users.