Cokel: Lodrigue: what, no arrows? :p

Solorsano: Reisio: why not divs or as or something?

Roso: Z1haze: was that for me?

Spene: I believe so, unless I misunderstood the question

Yannone: Pewpau: div is meaningless

Hortman: Z1haze: I’m asking why we’re using ul for menus, instead of say spans

Krugh: A is almost meaningless

Stearn: Span’s have nothingto do with a menu

Graper: Z1haze: I have a menu consisting of as right now

Mackell: Header, footer, nav, section, article, aside

Mcfeeley: What about it? Its specification is over 2k pages long, I can’t do that

Hollow: Pewpau: the purpose of HTML is to convey meaning

Issacs: An “easy” way to think about it is to imagine someone reading out your do***ent’s text aloud

Orrick: Before html5, it was fine to use div’s like you are suggesting, because there wasnt anything else. there was no standard.

Newnham: And think of what you’d describe each item as

Letscher: Now there is a standard, that a lot of software, screen readers, etc depend on

Litchard: Is thsi the way to do it? http://www.w3schools.com/TAgs/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml5_nav

Renick: Pewpau: The simplest definition of a menu is: a list of links. In HTML, we define a list with ulor ol and links with a

Miko: But I still need to encapsulate each a inside a div to give them some nice backgrounds and all?

Opiola: There are things you can do with an extra element, that is true

Shinault: And if it helps your brain, by all means, add another container

Brownson: Add a cl*** to the link, or just use the nth selection

Gartz: And if it is to convey no meaning at all, by all means, use a div

Goya: But a ul both conveys meaning and contains

Shull: I mean, look at this site for example: http://www.bp.com/ . in order to place the separators there, I need div?

Brunckhorst: Pewpau: You can do it using left & right borders

Accardi: When you’re starting out, it’s best not to think about what elements you’ll need to do something until after you add the base content

Mcauley: Veneman, Learn about semantic HTML structure: http://diveintohtml5.info/semantics.html

Aerni: Reisio: their website is hilarious. It’s green, gr***, water, clean eair and flowers everywhere LMAO

Wadell: Haha. and Iraq. As a cherry on top.

Aber: Pewpau, remember, you has pseudo cl***es too

Binning: Nav . seems to do nothing? You can just skip it?

Heagany: Except adding some semantics?

Hovda: You could argue that nav is more indicative of a nav than ul id=”nav”

Sapper: But we’ve been using ul id=”nav” for years and years, so I’m not sure how well it’d play out

Landeros: There was supposed to be a nav list element

Selden: Which would’ve been grand

Beers: Best not to think too much about it

Walth: Put a little effort into it, use p for a paragraph, use ul for a list

Jentry: But don’t expect HTML to make much sense :p

Robak: Absurd language, based on an even more absurd one

Jeschon: Foobar/foo – redundant bits in brackets

Ingrahm: I mean, you can just as well just do the aitem1 a item2 without the nav, now can’t you?

Malave: So. I’m using nav footer etc to feel better about myself? This is just getting weirder and weirder.

Cerqueira: Well, I’m inclined to agree with you for nav and footer

Leemans: Just random links, floating in the wind

Besherse: Historically invalid as well

Puetz: Reisio: that’s what /we/ think, that which you just said. But in the end, the page will just look like X.