SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 402
  1. #76
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan
    Are you thinking about <kbd>? <tt> in HTML4 is defined as...
    Yes, that was what I was thinking, and I was also thinking of ORLY-style books using them-- yes, they were using them as Tommy showed (mixing in different fonts for command prompts, filenames and variable, what users type in, what the shell pumps back out) and I mixed them up.

    On the other hand, I like how major browser vendors are actively participating
    in discussions regarding the new HTML 5 standard.
    I thought it (HTML5) was actually almost entirely their (the vendors') idea.

  2. #77
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    mixing in different fonts for command prompts, filenames and variable, what users type in, what the shell pumps back out
    Command prompts and what the shell pumps back out should be <samp>.
    What users type in should be <kbd>.
    Variables in user input should be <kbd><var>.
    Filenames can be <tt>.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  3. #78
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,813
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Amenthes View Post
    There's a thing I don't get in this whole thread. Why mentioning XHTML 2? I haven't heard
    news about it in ages and the last working draft is dated July 2006. Is there something that
    I miss? HTML 5 is alive, whereas XHTML 2 is dead. And by the way, one can use XHTML 5 if
    there's such a need for custom elements.
    HTML 5 is at least as far off implementation as XHTML 2 is. There is nowhere near as much need to discuss XHTML 2 because it is a finished stable product just waiting to be implemented. It will probably be at least another 10 years (if ever) before HTML 5 reaches that same point.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  4. #79
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    The XHTML 2 spec is way better than the HTML 5 spec. XHTML 2 is SGML. XHTML 2 is XML. HTML 5 is neither.
    XHTML5 is XML.

    As implemented in user agents (ignoring validators), HTML 4.01 is neither, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Of course no browser supports HTML 5 - fortunately.
    Internet Explorer 8 supports postMessage(), as do Firefox, Safari, Opera. Firefox, Safari and Opera have supported <canvas> for years. There are various other features from HTML5 that have been implemented and shipped in browsers (e.g. Web Forms 2.0 in Opera 9) and others that are being implemented and are about to be shipped (e.g. <video> in Firefox 3.5).

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    HTML 5 is at least as far off implementation as XHTML 2 is.
    As noted above, HTML5 has been actively implemented in browsers for years. XHTML 2 has not.

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    There is nowhere near as much need to discuss XHTML 2 because it is a finished stable product just waiting to be implemented.
    If that were the case, then the XHTML 2 spec wouldn't be in the "Working Draft" stage in the W3C process and there wouldn't be open outstanding issues on the spec.
    Simon Pieters

  5. #80
    Theoretical Physics Student bronze trophy Jake Arkinstall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lancaster University, UK
    Posts
    7,062
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    Internet Explorer 8 supports postMessage(), as do Firefox, Safari, Opera. Firefox, Safari and Opera have supported <canvas> for years. There are various other features from HTML5 that have been implemented and shipped in browsers (e.g. Web Forms 2.0 in Opera 9) and others that are being implemented and are about to be shipped (e.g. <video> in Firefox 3.5).

    As noted above, HTML5 has been actively implemented in browsers for years. XHTML 2 has not.
    Erm... not really. Just because a few elements have already been incorporated doesn't mean that browsers support HTML 5 at all. That's like saying that because you own a TV remote means you have the full TV entertainment system.
    Jake Arkinstall
    "Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel;
    Sometimes its enough to make that wheel more rounded"-Molona

  6. #81
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arkinstall View Post
    Erm... not really. Just because a few elements have already been incorporated doesn't mean that browsers support HTML 5 at all. That's like saying that because you own a TV remote means you have the full TV entertainment system.
    I never claimed that browsers support all of HTML 5. Please read more carefully.
    Simon Pieters

  7. #82
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,813
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Until there is an actual standard rather than just a draft there is nothing for browsers to support. All browsers are currently doung is trying out some of the proposals for HTML5 so that once it can be seen that they don't work they can be removed from the draft. This process will probably go on for quite a while until people get fed up with it and it will then sit on the shelf alongside XHTML 2 for however long it takes for people to forget about it.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  8. #83
    SitePoint Member stevejeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    New elements (for better structure) offered in HTML 5

    * section represents a generic document or application section. It can be used together with h1-h6 to indicate the document structure.
    * article represents an independent piece of content of a document, such as a blog entry or newspaper article.
    * aside represents a piece of content that is only slightly related to the rest of the page.
    * header represents the header of a section.
    * footer represents a footer for a section and can contain information about the author, copyright information, et cetera.
    * nav represents a section of the document intended for navigation.
    * dialog can be used to mark up a conversation.
    * figure can be used to associate a caption together with some embedded content, such as a graphic or video.
    Last edited by stevejeff; Apr 20, 2009 at 05:30. Reason: Grammar Error

  9. #84
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I thought the idea of having sections was so that h1-h6 was no longer needed, and there would just be a generic heading or h tag, with the level inferred from the nesting of sections?

    eg:

    HTML Code:
    <section>
     <h>Heading</h>
    
     <p>blah</p>
    
     <section>
      <h>More Blah</h>
    
      <p>Blah 2</p>
     </section>
    </section>
    with the first heading being displayed as an old H1, and the second heading being displayed as an old H2, because it is inside an inner section.

    I guess it is still useful for indicating which text the heading applies to:

    HTML Code:
    <section>
     <h1>Heading 1</h1>
    
     <p>Blah</p>
    
     <section>
      <h2>Heading 2</h2>
    
      <p>More Blah</p>
     </section>
    
     <p>Further Blah</p>
    </section>
    ..whereas without the section tag, you would have no idea whether the 'Further Blah' paragraph belonged to the H1 heading or H2 heading, the section tag allows you to see it belongs to the H1.
    Last edited by Stormrider; Apr 20, 2009 at 06:41. Reason: MOAR STUFFS

  10. #85
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Stormrider

    You first example is referring to xhtml2...

  11. #86
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    HTML 5 is at least as far off implementation as XHTML 2 is. There is nowhere near as much need to discuss XHTML 2 because it is a finished stable product just waiting to be implemented. It will probably be at least another 10 years (if ever) before HTML 5 reaches that same point.
    Is XHTML2 still using the same namespace as XHTML1.x? If so it will be waiting a long, long time indeed.
    "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what
    it might appear to others that what you were or might
    have been was not otherwise than what you had been
    would have appeared to them to be otherwise."

  12. #87
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    It does require the application/xhtml-xml MIME type if that is what you mean.

  13. #88
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, namespace is within the html tag:

    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"

    I would have thought the year would change for XHTML 2...

  14. #89
    . shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    No, namespace is within the html tag:

    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"

    I would have thought the year would change for XHTML 2...
    The namespace value is not treated as a URI but a string. You can ideally put anything there. All it does is provide uniquely named elements and attributes. Using a URI reduces the possibility of different namespaces using duplicate identifiers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Namespace
    ...is simply treated by an XML parser as a string. For example, the document at http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml itself does not contain any code. It simply describes the XHTML namespace to human readers.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  15. #90
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know that, but I would think it likely they come up with a new URI for XHTML2.

  16. #91
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,813
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I know that, but I would think it likely they come up with a new URI for XHTML2.
    Bu how many people would need to include both XHTML 1 and XHTML 2 in the same document? That would be the only situation where a different namespace for each would be required.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  17. #92
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Indeed, but it would be hardly any effort on their part to do so

  18. #93
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In the latest published draft, they use a different namespace. But a few years ago, they decided to use the same namespace, and the Editor's draft reflects that.

    Since XHTML 2 is incompatible with XHTML 1, a user agent cannot implement both so long as they use the same namespace.
    Simon Pieters

  19. #94
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To be honest, I don't really fully understand why there is a lot of hate for HTML5. Can anyone really sum it up? I think it has a lot of really good ideas.

  20. #95
    Theoretical Physics Student bronze trophy Jake Arkinstall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lancaster University, UK
    Posts
    7,062
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It just doesn't have the right feel about it. I am very semantic in the way I code things, and the XHTML 2 spec is really what I'm after.

    HTML5 undeprecates certain elements which is a pain in the a**. Things are defined which needn't be defined, and it looks like it's written in the eye of a beginner.

    XHTML 2, however, gets to the point. It adds structure more than anything.

    This article pretty much sums it up.
    Jake Arkinstall
    "Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel;
    Sometimes its enough to make that wheel more rounded"-Molona

  21. #96
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Like what? Seems perfectly semantic to me. HTML 5 adds more structure with the section, header, footer etc elements, which also have semantic meaning, new input types which will be extremely useful like email, date etc. Media is a lot easier with the video and audio elements (although they are yet to be fully finalised i think).

    As for un-deprecating things, which tags do you mean? I can't see any mentioned.

  22. #97
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    As for un-deprecating things, which tags do you mean? I can't see any mentioned.
    One word? iFrame. ... well technically that was not deprecated before HTML5 began construction but it should have been dumptrucked a while ago.

  23. #98
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Both X/HTML 5 and XHTML 2 are competing to replace HTML 4 and XHTML 1. Even at this early stage of development, some browser vendors have already stated their preference for one spec over the other. As a result of the haste and closed nature of deliberations, this issue is starting to polarize the Web standards community. As the two specs progress, more development and marketing dollars will be invested into one spec than the other, and all the ingredients are in place for a standards war.

  24. #99
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Oh great, first we had browsers fighting to be in pole position, now we have to deal with specifications raging over each other to see which becomes the Blu-ray and which ends up the HD-DVD. Just what we needed, more mudslinging between the working groups.

  25. #100
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I hate to admit this but I would rather use xhtml2 syntax and serve pages as text/html(in regards to ie) then being stuck with html5...


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •