Talk:Span and div

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

I'm not sure this page should exist, but I'll clean it up anyways. - Crenner 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia span and div
2 Some more explanation could be useful
3 Too Conversational
4 Too technical

[edit] Wikipedia span and div

Where can I find which span and div classes can be used with Wikipedia? --Abdull 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Help:HTML in wikitext. --Max 14:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some more explanation could be useful

I don't get an idea of why one should need to label elements within a web page with "id" or "class". I wouldn't mind a bit more educational content. The examples with a name and a date don't say why anyone would want to put labels on those elements and what one can do with this. __meco 19:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good questions, meco. I've added some stuff to the artticle to try to answer them. Hope it helps. --Nigelj 21:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Conversational

This article offers too much speculation about the future of the World Wide Web and such that is not particularly useful to the topic at hand. Much of this content is unnecessary and meandering. Can you cut out some of the speculation?

I think that in particular the parts about voice pronunciation of HTML are unrelated and could be more purposefully addressed in a seperate article on the topic. The article seems to go on and on about the topic even though it's not so much related to the topic of the article.

-FoxMajik 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the brief exchange with 'meco' just above before being tempted to delete large parts of the article. There is no speculation in this article: it was expanded because there was more to say. Every time someone says "I'd like to know more", we don't always find knowledgeable contributors to add relevant and informative detail. But every time someone says, "I got bored reading this because I don't know much about the topic, and don't really need to know too much about it" I think it's very counter-productive just to delete what we have.

It is true that there could and should be many more references and citations for all the important points made here. These are available from many places. Some starting points are http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ , http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.4 and http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-div . I hope to find the time soon to do some more work here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too technical

A "Too technical" tag has been added to this article. Taken in conjunction with the "Too conversational" complaint just above, I would suggest that that may mean that we have the balance about right. (And that you can't please all of the people all of the time, of course :-)

More seriously, this is a technical and complex topic if the reader is encouraged to think about it to any depth. That, coupled with a slightly discursive style, may hopefully encourage many but our least interested readers to think more deeply about the topic, in a wider context than it is normally given. By wider context I mean

in terms of users other than the normal web-visitor: including search engine bots etc,
in terms of disability discrimination: e.g. screen-readers
in wide timescales: many web pages, that are currently still readable and important, were added to the WWW up to 10 or more years ago

I hope that rather than complaining with simple template-tags, more interested wikipedians may consider researching some of the sources and helping improve the overall quality of the article themselves. --Nigelj (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)