Comments on: HTML: The Top Five Forgotten Elements http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/ Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:44:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: asif451 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-793960 asif451 Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:01:31 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-793960 I also had forgotten them. Thanks for this recap. This will help me in my <a href='http://www.programming-web.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2:web-based-applications&catid=3:web-concepts&Itemid=2' rel="nofollow"> web programming </a><a></a> I also had forgotten them. Thanks for this recap. This will help me in my web programming

]]> By: ResearchWizard http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-299942 ResearchWizard Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:04:15 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-299942 Regarding acronyms and abbrehevations and brothercake's comment: there are two definitions in the wild (both mentioned in the German Wikipedia, but not in the English one) : Acronyms could also be defined as read(able) alone as a whole word (like NATO), while abbrehevations always are spoken letter by letter (like U.S.A.). In technical sense the usage of this distinction could make it easier for screenreaders to have the correct articulation without having a long list of words that have to be spoken letter by letter. Well, I think this point is pretty irrelevant as long as most webcontent doesn't provide any of this tags at all. Regarding acronyms and abbrehevations and brothercake’s comment: there are two definitions in the wild (both mentioned in the German Wikipedia, but not in the English one) :
Acronyms could also be defined as read(able) alone as a whole word (like NATO), while abbrehevations always are spoken letter by letter (like U.S.A.). In technical sense the usage of this distinction could make it easier for screenreaders to have the correct articulation without having a long list of words that have to be spoken letter by letter. Well, I think this point is pretty irrelevant as long as most webcontent doesn’t provide any of this tags at all.

]]> By: TMAN001 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-243200 TMAN001 Wed, 09 May 2007 00:23:08 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-243200 Problem seems to be fixed now. No unusual setup. Cheers. Problem seems to be fixed now. No unusual setup. Cheers.

]]> By: AlexW http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-242515 AlexW Mon, 07 May 2007 23:59:36 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-242515 <blockquote>People, What’s with the layout of this page. It’s unreadable on PC/IE6 unless you make your browser approx 2000 pixels wide (which on my machine means across 2 monitors). Any less than this and the LHS of the article text is cropped. For shame. This isn’t aol.com, it’s sitepoint. </blockquote> It looks ok on my machine, but I'll take your word for it, TMAN001. Is there anything unusual about your IE setup? -- javascript disabled perhaps?

People,
What’s with the layout of this page. It’s unreadable on PC/IE6 unless you make your browser approx 2000 pixels wide (which on my machine means across 2 monitors). Any less than this and the LHS of the article text is cropped.

For shame. This isn’t aol.com, it’s sitepoint.

It looks ok on my machine, but I’ll take your word for it, TMAN001. Is there anything unusual about your IE setup? — javascript disabled perhaps?

]]> By: TMAN001 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-242507 TMAN001 Mon, 07 May 2007 23:49:40 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-242507 People, What's with the layout of this page. It's unreadable on PC/IE6 unless you make your browser approx 2000 pixels wide (which on my machine means across 2 monitors). Any less than this and the LHS of the article text is cropped. For shame. This isn't aol.com, it's sitepoint. People,
What’s with the layout of this page. It’s unreadable on PC/IE6 unless you make your browser approx 2000 pixels wide (which on my machine means across 2 monitors). Any less than this and the LHS of the article text is cropped.

For shame. This isn’t aol.com, it’s sitepoint.

]]> By: espmartin http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-242397 espmartin Mon, 07 May 2007 19:38:13 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-242397 Hurray for semantics! Hurray for semantics!

]]> By: AutisticCuckoo http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-231806 AutisticCuckoo Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:36:41 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-231806 <blockquote>As presented above, the semantic value of is somewhat limited. Its value can be easily increased with the addition of a title attribute containing a brief definition.</blockquote> That is not necessary, since <code>dfn</code> marks up the defining <em>instance</em> of the term, which should be accompanied by the definition in plain text. It is just a typographic convention, with little semantic value. It does <em>not</em> mark up a 'definition'.

As presented above, the semantic value of is somewhat limited. Its value can be easily increased with the addition of a title attribute containing a brief definition.

That is not necessary, since dfn marks up the defining instance of the term, which should be accompanied by the definition in plain text.

It is just a typographic convention, with little semantic value. It does not mark up a ‘definition’.

]]> By: mep00 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-229199 mep00 Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:03:36 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-229199 As presented above, the semantic value of <dfn> is somewhat limited. Its value can be easily increased with the addition of a title attribute containing a brief definition. It's in this way that it really sets itself apart from the <dl>. Where the definition in a <dl> is proper content, with a <dfn> he definition is meta-content (somewhat like a parenthetical definition). The use of a title attribute is also recommended for <abbt> and <acronym>. Since most browsers display the title attribute as a tool tip, by adding an underline (or better yet, a dotted bottom border so as not to confuse it with a link) and help cursor in CSS, you draw the users attention to it and increase its value even more. As presented above, the semantic value of <dfn> is somewhat limited. Its value can be easily increased with the addition of a title attribute containing a brief definition. It’s in this way that it really sets itself apart from the <dl>. Where the definition in a <dl> is proper content, with a <dfn> he definition is meta-content (somewhat like a parenthetical definition).

The use of a title attribute is also recommended for <abbt> and <acronym>.

Since most browsers display the title attribute as a tool tip, by adding an underline (or better yet, a dotted bottom border so as not to confuse it with a link) and help cursor in CSS, you draw the users attention to it and increase its value even more.

]]> By: AutisticCuckoo http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-227951 AutisticCuckoo Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:33:11 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-227951 <blockquote>To play devil’s advocate a little: if the creators of IE 5 got the box model wrong, what’s to say that browser creators didn’t misinterpret how var should be rendered?</blockquote> Microsoft used the wrong box model from the start (IE3). My guess is that they implemented an early draft of the spec -- they're W3C members, after all -- and the spec changed before it became an official recommendation. If <code>var</code> was meant for variables in code samples, wouldn't there be element types for <code>class</code>, <code>function</code>, <code>constant</code>, etc.? I remember some examples of how <code>var</code> was meant to be used, and it must have been from back in the days when the documentation was hosted on CERN's domain. It was clearly meant as a placeholder, not for programming samples. On the other hand, perhaps I'm going senile and I just dreamt that. :)

To play devil’s advocate a little: if the creators of IE 5 got the box model wrong, what’s to say that browser creators didn’t misinterpret how var should be rendered?

Microsoft used the wrong box model from the start (IE3). My guess is that they implemented an early draft of the spec — they’re W3C members, after all — and the spec changed before it became an official recommendation.

If var was meant for variables in code samples, wouldn’t there be element types for class, function, constant, etc.?

I remember some examples of how var was meant to be used, and it must have been from back in the days when the documentation was hosted on CERN’s domain. It was clearly meant as a placeholder, not for programming samples. On the other hand, perhaps I’m going senile and I just dreamt that. :)

]]> By: Hal9k http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/16/html-the-top-five-forgotten-elements/#comment-227869 Hal9k Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:53:23 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1902#comment-227869 My comment got mashed up; that's probably the only time you'll ever hear me say that! <blockquote cite="brothercake">So it’s easier and more consistent just to dispense with altogether, and use abbr for everything.</blockquote> What I was meaning to say is that Internet Explorer <= 6 (not sure about 7) doesn't support the abbr tag by default, so it may not <em>always</em> be easier. My comment got mashed up; that’s probably the only time you’ll ever hear me say that!

So it’s easier and more consistent just to dispense with altogether, and use abbr for everything.

What I was meaning to say is that Internet Explorer <= 6 (not sure about 7) doesn’t support the abbr tag by default, so it may not always be easier.

]]>