53 replies [Last post]
gary.turner's picture
Last seen: 1 year 48 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT-6
Joined: 2004-06-25
Posts: 9776
Points: 3858

I can see your point, but

I can see your point, but I'd rather have the machine auto-number so that maintaining the list is trivial; I don't have to manually renumber should I add or delete items. For the same reason, I like to use the counter property to add section and subsection, etc. numbering to a document.

You are free to add ol {list-style: none;} to your stylesheet.



If your web page is as clever as you can make it, it's probably too clever for you to debug or maintain.

Chris..S's picture
Last seen: 10 years 19 weeks ago
Timezone: GMT+1
Joined: 2005-02-22
Posts: 6078
Points: 173

That's better than having

That's better than having the computer renumber everything in order when someone adds a new second item?


putts's picture
Last seen: 15 years 32 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-04-30
Posts: 32
Points: 0

thepineapplehead wrote:Let's

thepineapplehead wrote:
Let's say I have a random quote generator which pulls information from this xml file:

Charles Dickens
October 7th, 1924
blah blah blah

now if the Q tag didn't exist in HTML, how exactly would you suggest parsing that into a HTML document?

HTML is a "Language" built around Structuring text onto the page. With that in mind, if you have an XML/RDF doc behind the scenes that search engines can utilize to get information about the page, then you can let HTML do what it was intended to do...simply structure the page. So that quote could sit in a P tag or a SPAN or whatever else holds basic text. You, basically, use a Q tag currently to help computers (search engines, etc.) to better understand the content of your page but in a system where XML defines that and other computers can use that XML to get information about the page, it becomes quite pointless to use tags that only exist to add some semantic value to the page. Any styling that Q tag currently does could be done using CSS classes applied to either a P or a SPAN.

Using your example, you can clearly see how much more robust a search engine built off some behind-the-scenes XML would be as opposed to trying to use a structure mark-up to do that.

With your example, not only can the search engine understand that the quote "blah blah blah" exists on your page (which is all a Q tag will tell it), it also now knows that it's a quote from Dickens and was said on 1924-10-07. Imagine the possibilities of knowing all that information at a search engine level.
Even if the HTML on your page looks like !Q!blah blah blah - Charles Dickens, 1924-10-07!Q! thus containing all the information that is in your XML, it does not allow the search engine any more ability than simple text-based searches.....it has no idea that Charles Dickens is the author of that quote....just that the text 'Charles Dickens' exists on the page. In a true Semantic Web environment, the search engine would know that the quote is blah blah blah and that Charles Dickens. That might not seem like that big of a deal but imagine (as a very simple example of what Semantic Webs can do) that you're trying to find a quote where someone was talking about Charles Dickens. You dont want a bunch of results that have Charles Dickens as the author, but rather ones that have Charles Dickens in the quote.