Numbered divs are an easy way for the *encoder* to provide the
desired object nesting for indexing/searching, contextualization,
and object display independent of the content of a type attribute.
This is particularly useful if you are implementing a collection,
or any group of collections, that can be made up of any number of
different kinds of divs that require distinct nesting orders.
Unnumbered divs leave it to the implementor to either guess, on
a case by case basis, the best nesting order, or simply to assume
that all divs are equal. IMHO, having the encoder explicitly
identify the nesting order that s/he considers most appropriate
for a particular document outweighs the implementation problems
that numbered divs might cause.
>> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:00:51 +0100
>> From: Branko Collin <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: <div> versus <divN> again
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> On 13 Feb 2004, at 9:04, David Sewell wrote:
>> > Numbered divs: makes it easier to deal with specific levels in
>> > the text hierarchy, like all second-level elements
>> This would only seem useful if you make a certain level mean
>> something. Which would also mean that you would have to document that
>> meaning somewhere (in a style guide) and enforce its use.
>> The rest is a display problem. You may find the XPaths and XSLT
>> scripts ugly, but I don't really see a problem there, unless you
>> expect the end user to deal with these technologies. In which case
>> your real problem lies elsewhere.
>> branko collin
>> [log in to unmask]