<ul class="subsubsection" id="domaener">

[PeterMcC]

dorayme wrote in
<[email protected]>

It is all very well this light talk... but there IS A HEAVY
question that seems to escape your conscience... the cheating
dirty rotten low as mongrel way you robbed poor new Australia by
that goal...

er.. sorry... just a moment of blind rage...

Daughter's bloke is Australian - we've brought her up to be broad minded and
appreciate cultural diversity - and I got a text message from him after the
match. "Oh, right. It's like Charades isn't it? The winners are the ones who
do the best mime act using only a football for a prop."

A little bitterness there, I think. Perhaps he could take his mind off it by
watching the Ashes DVD that we bought him for Xmas.

 

[PeterMcC]

Neredbojias wrote in

To further the education of mankind, "Jonathan N. Little"


Maybe, but they're good for other malardies.

Well, I thought it was funny.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Neredbojias wrote in


Well, I thought it was funny.

I canard-ly disagree.

 

[Jim Higson]

instead of "subsubsection" it might be neater to use XHTML2 style
nesting. For example, this selector matches a section in a section in a
section:

.section .section .section

Don't what that has to do XHTML, CSS2.1 does nesting selector just dandy.
[snip]

Don't get Luigi confused with XHTML, he is dangerous enough in HTML

When I described it as "XHTML2 style", I was making a reference to the
proposed XHTML2 section element, which is intended to be used with CSS
selectors like:

section section section

To indicate what you might call a "subsubsection". I think the example I
gave of:

.section .section .section

can be honestly described as similar in style, no?

 

[Jim Higson]

But I use a html doctype....

I meant the CSS is similar to how it is intended XHTML2 would be styled. Of
course, I'm not saying use XHTML2, since it doesn't properly exist yet! See
my other post.

 

[JDS]

I canard-ly disagree.

That is fowl.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Brazil.

It is all very well this light talk... but there IS A HEAVY
question that seems to escape your conscience... the cheating
dirty rotten low as mongrel way you robbed poor new Australia by
that goal...

er.. sorry... just a moment of blind rage...[/QUOTE]


Sorry about Australia..(a nice country)
but I think that Italy deserved to win...
you are better to play rugby, aren´t you?

 

[dorayme]

It is all very well this light talk... but there IS A HEAVY
question that seems to escape your conscience... the cheating
dirty rotten low as mongrel way you robbed poor new Australia by
that goal...

er.. sorry... just a moment of blind rage...

Sorry about Australia..(a nice country)
but I think that Italy deserved to win...
you are better to play rugby, aren´t you?
[/QUOTE]

At the moment, even our recently arrived Italian migrants would
not dare to say what you just said. The mood of the country is
not right. There is talk of war.

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Sorry about Australia..(a nice country)
but I think that Italy deserved to win...
you are better to play rugby, aren´t you?

At the moment, even our recently arrived Italian migrants would
not dare to say what you just said. The mood of the country is
not right. There is talk of war.[/QUOTE]


Which country?

 

[dorayme]

At the moment, even our recently arrived Italian migrants would
not dare to say what you just said. The mood of the country is
not right. There is talk of war.

Which country?[/QUOTE]

Do you mean witch country?

Eliza

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Sorry about Australia..(a nice country)
but I think that Italy deserved to win...
you are better to play rugby, aren´t you?

Nope, not a computer, Eliza would not say such 'fighting words'

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Don't what that has to do XHTML, CSS2.1 does nesting selector just

dandy.

[snip]

Don't get Luigi confused with XHTML, he is dangerous enough in HTML

When I described it as "XHTML2 style", I was making a reference to the
proposed XHTML2 section element, which is intended to be used with CSS
selectors like:

section section section

To indicate what you might call a "subsubsection". I think the example I
gave of:

.section .section .section

can be honestly described as similar in style, no?

Yes, it can.
But there is some example at W3 with
subsection

<DIV class="subsection" id="forest-habitat" >

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

Which country?

Do you mean witch country?

Eliza[/QUOTE]


Did you not live on Mars?

 

[dorayme]

Nope, not a computer, Eliza would not say such 'fighting words'

I dunno... I think soccerBasic might well generate such...

 

[Neredbojias]

Well, I thought it was funny.

Well _some_ of us have a sense of humor...

 

[Jim Higson]

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:

Yes, it can.
But there is some example at W3 with
subsection

<DIV class="subsection" id="forest-habitat" >

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html

Personally, I would call that bad style. Not *that* bad, but not great. A
subsection is a section in a section, so selecting with a style rule like:

..section .section

This does just the same but, apart from using fewer class names, has a
couple of benefits.

The main advantage is that the script to output the HTML for a section
doesn't have to care what level the section will be in the hierarchy - you
can have the same code to output a feature regardless of if it will end up
as a top-level section or a subsubsubsubsubsubsubsubsection

This is why XHTML2 doesn't have h1, h2 ... h9 tags - it just has one header
tag, and the level of the header is defined by how many section tags it has
as ancestors. So this CSS selector for XHTML2:

section section header

is this same as this one for HTML4:

h2

So, under XHTML2 it will be impossible to improperly nest your headings,
which I think is rather neat.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I dunno... I think soccerBasic might well generate such...

Well I thought it was unwise to criticize any country's soccer|football
ability (except for the US where it get no respect) Back in HS our
school was too small for football so soccer was 'the game', but it never
ignited any passion in this county. :-(

 

[jojo]

Did you not live on Mars?

Would you mind to move your discussion to alt.sport.soccer? Not that I'm
not interested in that topic (although there is no need to discuss:
Germany will win th cup!!!!!), but there are groups to discuss that
exact topic, so why don't you use them??

 

[PeterMcC]

jojo wrote in

Would you mind to move your discussion to alt.sport.soccer? Not that
I'm not interested in that topic (although there is no need to
discuss: Germany will win th cup!!!!!), but there are groups to
discuss that exact topic, so why don't you use them??

A word to the wise - it might be an acceptable risk to annoy a Martian,
though War of the Worlds would suggest otherwise, (sorry dorayme, didn't
really want to mention that particular unpleasantness), but to take a chance
on upsetting Luigi...

....tread carefully.



And a more serious suggestion - it's helpful to draw folk's attention when
the f'ups have been reset.

 

[Neredbojias]

So, under XHTML2 it will be impossible to improperly nest your
headings, which I think is rather neat.

And it'll be used about as much as granny uses a chainsaw.