Re: [docbook-apps] Simpler XHTML output

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 19:29 -0500, Larry Garfield wrote:
> Dave Pawson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 10:40 -0700, Bob Stayton wrote:
> 
> >>  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.
> > 
> > What use cases do you see then Bob?
> 
> See my last email for an instance that just happened to me recently.
The current HTML output provides the full 'complexity' and css hooks
needed.

> 
> > Mine is very plain HTML, if viewed in a browser.
> >   Not exiting visually, I agree.
> 
> Having extra nested divs doesn't make your output any less plain. 
I think it does. Extra markup for one. That meets my definition of
complex Paul?

>  On 
> the other hand, they allow me to create fancier pages with extra 
> non-content images in weird places, which I do need for my current 
> project.  Removing most of the style-less divs wouldn't affect your code 
> either way, but would make mine much harder to deal with. :-)
In which case Rene's idea of a 'simple xhtml' output wouldn't be
suitable for such a use case.

> 
> (Note: That's not intended as a slam against you in any way, in case it 
> came off as such.  I'm just pointing out that simple-page folk don't 
> lose functionality with the divs there while complex-page folk do lose 
> functionality without them.)

Use the current html output to keep that level of functionality.
  I think both Rene and I are aiming towards a far simpler output.
Simpler being defined as less markup.

regards DaveP


>