SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Html5 & ie

  1. #1
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    East Midlands, United Kingdom
    Posts
    103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Html5 & ie

    Hello There,

    Recently I picked up a copy of Web Designer Magazine and looked at applying HTML 5.

    Does HTML 5 require this Javascript file in order to work?


    <script src="html5.js"></script>

    I was wondering if there were any other ways to load HTML 5 without using javascript.

    Many thanks

  2. #2
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    4727′35″N 2618′0″E
    Posts
    1,789
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    html5 doesn't really exist until the browser producers implement it: that's the "loading" process. this process of implementing html5 specifications in a version of a browser is called html5 support.

    since this implementation is done gradually, and since html5 has not reached yet a final specification, upgrading a browser to a newer version usually means a better html5 support. like going from ie7 to ie8. or trying ie9 beta.

    html5.js is a way to simulate html5 for browsers built before html5 was even a draft (state in which html5 still is). like ie6, ie7.

    Does HTML 5 require this Javascript file in order to work?
    depends on the support level for html5 offered by a particular browser version. ie9, for example, is supposed to support many html5 features. html5 means html4 .01 or xhtml 1.0 plus some new elements "minus" some elements and attributes. html5.js is for simulating those new elements and attributes for browsers that have implemented only html 4.01 and xhtml 1.0 and possibly, some html5.

  3. #3
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That javascript is to support it on browsers that don't support it natively yet -- BUT

    ANYONE who is suggesting you use javascript to add support on legacy browsers for a specification NOT EVEN OUT OF DRAFT YET (...and therein has NO BUSINESS being used in the creation of production websites for real world deployment) deserves a backhanded pimp-slap into next week!

    You want to play with it to see what we MIGHT be able to do SOMEDAY and maybe report errors in implementation to the browser makers who are supporting it, fine... But using a javascript shim to make it real world usable? SCREW THAT IDIOCY!

    NOT that I'm a fan of HTML5 in the first place -- I still say most developers are better served by XHTML 1.0 Strict or even HTML 4.01 STRICT instead of that train-wreck of pointless garbage setting site production BACK a decade in methodology.

    No surprises there though since most people are still writing pages with decade out of date methods in the first place.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've never seen said js file but I expect it fixes a bug/feature/whatever in IE which means you can't style tags which it doesn't recognise

    So it's absolutely fine to use HTML5 without using that javascript file (I do) - just don't use the new HTML5 tags (I don't )

  5. #5
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    East Midlands, United Kingdom
    Posts
    103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello all,

    Thank you for your comments.

    I've been reading about learning HTML 5 & CSS3. Currently, it seems great that it can create all these wonderful effects in every other browser expect IE. At this point in time, it seems a nightmare to work with something that isn't completely ready and fully functional.

    I don't know about yourselves or your opinions, but it feels like we're the guinea pigs for a lot of these technologies and it can be added unproductivity.

    It brings up another point, if we're just using HTML 5 to change a tag from <div id=header"> to <header> its not really a life or death change.

    Using Javascript to load a div tag up in IE, would perhaps hit some SEO problems as Google isn't a fan of Javascript.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by crusty
    That javascript is to support it on browsers that don't support it natively yet -- BUT

    ANYONE who is suggesting you use javascript to add support on legacy browsers for a specification NOT EVEN OUT OF DRAFT YET (...and therein has NO BUSINESS being used in the creation of production websites for real world deployment) deserves a backhanded pimp-slap into next week!
    I personally do not feel comfortable with requiring a script to tell a browser how to read plain old markup. Goes against the whole "device/software/platform independence" HTML (and the web) was originally designed for.

    I've been reading about learning HTML 5 & CSS3. Currently, it seems great that it can create all these wonderful effects in every other browser expect IE. At this point in time, it seems a nightmare to work with something that isn't completely ready and fully functional.
    Well, what's "nice" about CSS3 is, so long as you don't do anything stupid like relying on text-shadow to show white text on a white background (that kind of thing), it's just an extra: browsers who support the particular CSS3 property show it. Those who can't, don't. Your basic, non-CSS3 site should work in all browsers (so test it), then layer whatever CSS3 fancy junk on top you want. It's usually not a deal-breaker (what it really depends on is, does you client insist certain effects are cross-browser? If so, no CSS3 for you).

    I don't know about yourselves or your opinions, but it feels like we're the guinea pigs for a lot of these technologies and it can be added unproductivity.
    On the other hand, things in draft need real-world testing. This is why Perl6 was released as "Rakudo *"... Perl6 is not "finished" (though it's usable), but this is in part because the designers of the language need to know what do developers want? need? use? don't use? find more bugs in?

    And of course you can just not use these technologies, especially when you need to be "safe" for clients.

    It brings up another point, if we're just using HTML 5 to change a tag from <div id=header"> to <header> its not really a life or death change.
    No but it does add unnecessary work today. Browsers who don't understand HTML5 need to be told <header> is a block. They don't need to be told <div> is a block.
    The JAWS screen reader would ignore anything inside <header> tags if the user was using Firefox until the recently-released JAWS 12 came out (and since it costs an arm and a leg, unlike a browser, you betcha there are going to be users with JAWS 9, 10 and 11 visiting your site for a while yet!).
    Window-Eyes also has some trouble with HTML5 elements, sometimes especially when adding ARIA attributes (and the funny thing is, the extra semantics that HTML5 is supposed to give us hasn't reached AT yet, so right now <header> doesn't mean anything more than <div>... that'll take some time yet... so right now HTML5 needs help to be accessible at the moment).

    Using Javascript to load a div tag up in IE, would perhaps hit some SEO problems as Google isn't a fan of Javascript.
    Nah, most of the javascripts out there just help tell IE what an element is or how it's supposed to look and act... Google just sees content, and your tags are going to stay semantic as far as <ul> for lists, <h?> for headers, <form> for forms, etc. Googlebots and other crawlers generally don't load Javascript at all, which is why you shouldn't be loading content with Javascript. But that's not what the html5 javascript-helpers do.


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
  •