Ha ha!
Well, if I ever go there, I’ll make my best to meet up with you!

Regarding navigation: in this exact example, yes. But generally a navigational part of a web site consists of more than just an unordered list, so it was kind of implied there would be more content there. Sorry if this wasn’t clear.

A fieldset would absolutely be better. I avoided it on purpose here, though, since there are some presentational issues about controlling how it is rendered, and the scope of explaining it was just a little bit bigger than this context.

Wouldn´t a fieldset be more semantic than < div id=”contact-form”>?

I agree that it is related with MicroFormats, and MicroFormats is a good thing to use (at least in the right context). What I meant about accessibility and search engines, is that semantic HTML will improve that.

MicroFormats, as far as I know, isn’t generally taken into consideration for those things.

But I absolutely agree that proper class names also should be a vital part in the code.

Jermayn,

If you get the trip paid, I’m there!
Actually, Perth is one of the places I haven’t been in Australia, so that would coincide perfectly with my own travel desires.

semantics underpin accessibility and search. i don’t know what you’re talking about there?!

it’s not very accessible for a system to process a hcard marked up with obscure, non-standard, class names any less than it is having a navigation class called ‘elephant’ or ‘rock’ as an example. if something isn’t standards-based it also makes search a lot harder - you and your readers will know this already.

set me straight if i’m wrong.

Eh… Semantic HTML and Microformats are indeed very different things. Microformats is semantic in the aspect that it uses semantic class names and such, but that’s not the same thing as semantic HTML, nor something that will improve accessibility or search engine ranking.

I think that people who take the time to listen to the arguments will agree. Problem is, most don’t have, nor take, that time, and in some cases their view is very narrow: if it looks somewhat ok in IE in Windows when you have a 20/20 vision and JavaScript isn’t blocked in any way, then that’s sufficient.

Needless to say, that’s not my view.

i mean its simply saying make your markup and content meaningful, use the right tool for the right job etc… which to me has always been common sense.

and i do understand those who are maybe new or a little under developed but it confuses me that some people when confronted with the logic of semantics actually reject it outright.

then again i’ve got my last uni exam tomorrow so there’s a lot in the world i don’t get at the moment (Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing for one lol - ok I get it a bit)…

I forgot to reply to this:

Who is it that you want to care about semantics? Web developers, clients or the general public? I’m not sure that the last two groups need or should be expected to care.

Couldn’t agre more. It is only relevant for the first group, but the difference in the result should definitely be noticeable to the other two groups.

Steven,

Good that we agree!

It is overused, I agree. But my reasons for using it is explained in my comment above to Ed.

although i would digress to mention that the term semantic has become one of those overused words which tends to get bandied around - in the end everything sounds like semantic sense to someone it seems…

we probably do need a new word to represent what we really mean. “natural”? Nuh I can’t think of another one. Excellent post, there needs to be more basic information out there.