[Wsuug] Updated/new site

[Zach Young]

yes, the most sense is good.

On Jan 28, 2008 9:29 AM, Andrew Jaswa <ajaswa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2008 11:18 PM, Zach Young <young.zach at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yea, I think we agreed wsuug was an acronym, though, W3C is
> > exceedingly confusing on the topic. I remember having long drawn out
> > candlelight debates with Andy over the topic.
>
> Yes we did agree that it was an acronym, but abbr is more widely supported...
>
>
> > Not to throw more dissent into the discussion, but I usually prefer to
> > use 'content' as the name for section #3 otherwise people get confused
> > and think the body tag, and then I have to beat them up.
>
> Yea I tend to also use content over body. If you take a look at the
> websites that google pulled together [1] you can see that they lumped
> "text, content, main and body"  into the same group. The idea is to
> call the division a name that makes the most sense.
>
>
> Andrew
>
> [1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wsuug mailing list
> Wsuug at list.wsuug.org
> http://www.thelinuxlink.net/mailman/listinfo/wsuug
>