@jensgro its funny you mention that this article talks exactly about semantics http://coding.smashingmagazine.com/2013/08/20/semantic-css-with-intelligent-selectors/
and not using divs to style buttons

Hi David, I didn't mention the article and of course in this article a button it was never propagated to mimic a button with a DIV. It's just not the way to do frontend-development correct.

What does in your view oppose the correct usage of HTML, i.e. the use of button if a button is required and not to style a DIV as a button and helping with Javascript to simulate what a button has out-of-the-box?

If I follow your examples we can get rid of all HTML-semantic and build a complete page just with DIV oder SPAN. That's useless.

@jensgro Sorry im not sure i follow your question... Im not the author of the article, but what i was getting at is that it does not make sense to me to have a button made up from DIV and a empty I tag as found in http://semantic-ui.com/elements/button.html why not use BUTTON tag and style it... seems like that is what you suggested from the start and i was simply agreeing...

Hi David, sorry, I made the assumption that you are the author of this very strange "framework".
Yes, it doesn't make sense to code sites like done in the examples of this project. I just wanted to emphasize on that.

+1 @jensgro. I am more than a little put off by the total avoidance of HTML5 tags, i.e. why use <div class="ui menu"> when <nav> serves the same purpose and is much more concise? The regression from <button> to <div class="ui button">, <header> to <div class="ui header">, <main> to <div class="main container"> all seems very backwards to me.

Can anyone explain the rationale behind ditching actual semantic tags? Would it ever be preferable to use <span class="bold"> over the <b> tag? The <b> tag has an inherent special meaning, whereas the class names do not. Similarly, <header> and <footer> denote a particular kind of content, which isn't exactly communicated by just adding a few class names to divs. As a side note, the ui class name seems totally redundant, but more dangerously, not consistently applied.

You can use any tag you please. Button tag works as well as div or article. Semantic refers to the linguistic definition of the word, not the current developer re-appropriation to mean adherence to w3c specification.

For more on this refer to prescriptivist/descriptivist dilemma in linguistics as described in a humorous form by DFW
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html

Okay, but if I use the button tag, would it be <button class="ui button">? That would be redundant, no?

Yes, it is redundant, but not all UI types are represented in html tags. We only get to play with a handful of new ones every few years, and hell some of those get deprecated. And who decides? A committee of industry folks who are on the W3C advisory board and a smidgen of browsers devs in the implementation. There's plenty of other sources of grief on the web over the whole process so i'll save the recap.

Semantic is about developers coming together to build standards around naming, so that we can share code between projects without having to learn each others conventions.

+1

+1

I am wondering if the old GitHub's upvote button was a real BUTTON 😆

+1