HTML5的结构和语义——语义性的块级元素(三)_XHTML教程

<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="40%">
<tbody><tr><td width="10">
<img alt="" src="//www.ibm.com/i/c.gif" height="1" width="10"></td>
<td>
<table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#eeeeee">
<p><a name="xf-value"><span class="smalltitle">.xf-value</span></a></p>
<p>
The <code type="inline">.xf-value</code> selector used here styles the input
field value but not its label. This is actually inconsistent
with the current CSS3 draft. The example really should use the
<code type="inline">::value</code> pseudo-class instead like so:
</p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tbody><tr><td class="code-outline">
<pre class="displaycode">input::value { width: 20em; }
#ccnumber::value { width: 18em }
#zip::value { width: 12em }
#state::value { width: 3em }</pre>
</td></tr></tbody></table><br>

<p>
However, Firefox doesn't yet support this syntax.
</p>
</td></tr></table>

<aside>
<h3>.xf-value</h3>
<p>
The <code type="inline">.xf-value</code> selector used here styles the input
field value but not its label. This is actually inconsistent
with the current CSS3 draft. The example really should use the
<code type="inline">::value</code> pseudo-class instead like so:
</p>

<pre class="displaycode">input::value { width: 20em; }
#ccnumber::value { width: 18em }
#zip::value { width: 12em }
#state::value { width: 3em }</pre>

<p>
However, Firefox doesn't yet support this syntax.
</p>
</aside>

<a name="fig2"><b>Figure 2. Install Mozilla XForms dialog</b></a><br />
<img alt="A Web site is requesting permission to install the following item:
Mozilla XForms 0.7 Unsigned"
src="installdialog.jpg" border="0" height="317" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="331" />
<br />

<figure id="fig2">
<legend>Figure 2. Install Mozilla XForms dialog</legend>
<img alt="A Web site is requesting permission to install the following item:
Mozilla XForms 0.7 Unsigned"
src="installdialog.jpg" border="0" height="317" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="331" />
</figure>

<dialog>
<dt>Simplicius </dt>
<dd>According to the straight line AF,
and not according to the curve, such being already excluded
for such a use.</dd>

<dt>Sagredo </dt>
<dd>But I should take neither of them,
seeing that the straight line AF runs obliquely. I should
draw a line perpendicular to CD, for this would seem to me
to be the shortest, as well as being unique among the
infinite number of longer and unequal ones which may be
drawn from the point A to every other point of the opposite
line CD. </dd>

<dt>Salviati </dt>
<dd><p> Your choice and the reason you
adduce for it seem to me most excellent. So now we have it
that the first dimension is determined by a straight line;
the second (namely, breadth) by another straight line, and
not only straight, but at right angles to that which
determines the length. Thus we have defined the two
dimensions of a surface; that is, length and breadth. </p>

<p> But suppose you had to determine a height—for
example, how high this platform is from the pavement down
below there. Seeing that from any point in the platform we
may draw infinite lines, curved or straight, and all of
different lengths, to the infinite points of the pavement
below, which of all these lines would you make use of? </p>
</dd>
</dialog>