SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 87

Thread: HTML5 Renamed!

  1. #51
    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
    So if the extendability option of XHTML is no something that many people will use then why is HTML5 (by whatever name) being reorganised in order to provide that exact same feature.
    It isn't. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...1Feb/0085.html

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    The whole point in their renaming HTML5 to HTML is so as to add extendibility into HTML
    No, it isn't.
    Simon Pieters

  2. #52
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,597
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    It isn't.
    So the new HTML will be identically equivalent to HTML 4.01 then with no additional tags or attributes. Seems a complete waste of time to be doing anything about HTML standards in that case.

    If the new HTML is not going to be identical to HTML 4.01 then either a new version will be released as a unit that adds extra features and that ought to be called HTML5 OR the new version will introduce new features as modules which as far as most people are concerned is no different from extending XHTML.
    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="^$">

  3. #53
    SitePoint Member jeeksanusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd go with FRED

  4. #54
    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
    So the new HTML will be identically equivalent to HTML 4.01 then with no additional tags or attributes.
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    If the new HTML is not going to be identical to HTML 4.01 then either a new version will be released as a unit that adds extra features and that ought to be called HTML5 OR the new version will introduce new features as modules which as far as most people are concerned is no different from extending XHTML.
    Those two are not the only possible alternatives.

    http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#.E2....ent_of_time...
    Simon Pieters

  5. #55
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    47°27′35″N 26°18′0″E
    Posts
    1,789
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I see... So when a dispute rises, you can always say: "it's draft" or "it will be changed soon".

    This whole story is about a stupid thought: putting versions on smt may stop it's evolution.

    It's the other way around. Putting version on smt is what makes it change often.

    With html there were big player(s) that made it impossible to be true. And now, when those players seem to get up to speed, a moronic initiative: let's put it in full stop.

    Because, if you pay attention, they are saying that once a section matures, it will stop its further development, unless for security reason.

    A utopia, really. And this initiative is really destined to fail. Because it's moronic. Not only because it produces a childish spec, but because it uses amateur means to achieve its goals.

  6. #56
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,597
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    Those two are not the only possible alternatives.
    So what other alternative is there for releasing something other than all at once or piece at a time (other than not releasing it at all which you also said isn't the case)?

    I am interested in hearing just what other alternative is possible given that these alternatives appear to me to already cover everything that is possible.
    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="^$">

  7. #57
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- it's little more than further proof of the idiocy that is WhatWG -- First they strip versioning from the document with their dumbass lip-service doctype (because god forbid you actually say what revision of the rules you are following), then sleaze together every half-assed tag you shouldn't be using in the first place into a giant mess that makes HTML 4 tranny look good, undo all the progress of STRICT by bloating out the specification with tags REDUNDANT to existing ones (because when people can't be bothered to use the existing tags properly, adding more is going to make it SO much better)...

    Now they go and strip versioning from it COMPLETELY?

    Of course, to me that ANYONE is DUMB ENOUGH to think that HTML 5 is somehow any better than XHTML 1.0 STRICT or HTML 4 STRICT is outright mind blowing... We're talking kool aid stronger than the stuff at Jonestown -- makes one wonder if Steve Jobs is somehow involved given the level of reality distortion field involved.

    Newer isn't always better -- and so far as HTML 5 goes, it's "slap it together any old way" attitude is NOT an improvement -- it seems entirely crafted to pacify the people who still sleaze out HTML 3.2, slap a HTML 4 tranny doctype on it and then call it 'modern'.

    Which is just part of why I see NO LEGITIMATE REASON to migrate past XHTML 1.0 STRICT at this point in time.

    Of course you know something is bull when people start running their mouths with terms like it being a "living document". Great, who put the history major who dropped out in his second year in charge?

    It's almost as bad as the people who talk about "free as in freedom" then saddle it with 35k of plaintext restrictions in legalese only a career lawyer can follow to exploit loopholes in copyright law.... or the people who don't understand what a simile is...

    Snake oil doctors never went away, they're just better at hiding their colors.
    What is this? looks like piss... smells like piss... this is piss... piss with ink...
    Ladies seem to love it... So do flies

  8. #58
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jeeksanusa View Post
    I'd go with FRED
    I've seen this several times, and on one level it's funny. However, on another level it misses the real train wreck in progress here. It's not about what we are going to call the spec. It's about the idea that WHATWG no longer believes they should be held to any particular spec at all. Releasing a "spec" as a living document means that you never intend to release a spec again. A spec is by definition a fixed point that everyone can use as a point of common understanding, and hopefully (though only slowly in web dev) as a common point that everyone can work towards. If the "spec" is now something that changes every other day, it is not a fixed point and we don't even have a common point of reference to discuss what browser manufacturer's are or aren't including in their programs.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    This whole story is about a stupid thought: putting versions on smt may stop it's evolution.

    It's the other way around. Putting version on smt is what makes it change often.
    I couldn't have said it better myself. If you no longer are expected to create the next version number, you can't be held accountable when you make no improvements to the spec. IT'S UNVERSIONED! IT'S LIVING! So what difference does it make if you actually haven't changed anything except the copyright date in 4 years.

    Here's my real problem...

    The W3C has overly bureaucratic processes. The W3C has been pushed around and not stood its ground on some important issues. Browser vendors have ignored important standards the W3C has implemented correctly, because they decided not to do so (in one case, not updating their browser for almost half a decade). I think we would all agree that these are serious issues that the W3C faces and which we as an industry need to improve. So what do they do?

    Drop Version Numbers????

    When the *&^%$%*&^*% did a version number ever slow the W3C? They have serious problems with their procedures and ability to advance the standard; so the solution is to keep the problems and procedures but just drop the version numbers which make it obvious how slow they are going?

    You are so right, noonnope, this isn't to "improve" anything. This is just to mask how badly things are going for the W3C so they don't have to keep making excuses for why they aren't making any progress.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  9. #59
    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
    So what other alternative is there for releasing something other than all at once or piece at a time (other than not releasing it at all which you also said isn't the case)?

    I am interested in hearing just what other alternative is possible given that these alternatives appear to me to already cover everything that is possible.
    A living document which is continually updated.
    Simon Pieters

  10. #60
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    I see... So when a dispute rises, you can always say: "it's draft" or "it will be changed soon".
    The name change has not affected how disputes are handled at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    This whole story is about a stupid thought: putting versions on smt may stop it's evolution.

    It's the other way around. Putting version on smt is what makes it change often.

    With html there were big player(s) that made it impossible to be true. And now, when those players seem to get up to speed, a moronic initiative: let's put it in full stop.
    I don't follow here.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    Because, if you pay attention, they are saying that once a section matures, it will stop its further development, unless for security reason.
    It won't stop further development. However, once a feature is shipped in implementations and used by Web content, the spec cannot be changed in backwards-incompatible ways (because the implementors would never agree to break compat unless for security reasons).

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    A utopia, really. And this initiative is really destined to fail.
    What is destined to fail?

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    Because it's moronic. Not only because it produces a childish spec, but because it uses amateur means to achieve its goals.
    What?
    Simon Pieters

  11. #61
    SitePoint Evangelist Karpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    It won't stop further development. However, once a feature is shipped in implementations and used by Web content, the spec cannot be changed in backwards-incompatible ways (because the implementors would never agree to break compat unless for security reasons).
    Huzzah, so all the cruft already there and any cruft that happens to get added can never be removed.


  12. #62
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    47°27′35″N 26°18′0″E
    Posts
    1,789
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @zcorpan

    I'm not talking about the name, when dispute rises. I'm talking about the "living" nature of the spec, making it impossible for me to ever be sure if my point is a definitive one.

    If you don't use version control, you're, in fact, slowing and then stopping the evolution. I mean, just read this. They start by saying: "we want the change, if nothing is changing":
    As parts of the specification mature, and implementations ship, we stop making changes to those sections for all but the most critical of reasons, such as security problems
    and then they go "we will contradict our self every other phrase":
    The specification is never complete, since the Web is continuously evolving.
    Moronic, really. I mean, at some point, all sections must complete, all parts of the spec mature. What then? What about "is never complete part"? I'll tell you what about it: cheap philosophy.


    WHATWG is destined to fail. Their ideas and their specs are moronic and amateuresc.

  13. #63
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    @zcorpan

    I'm not talking about the name, when dispute rises. I'm talking about the "living" nature of the spec, making it impossible for me to ever be sure if my point is a definitive one.
    How do you deal with disputes about the English language? How can you be sure that your point is a definitive one when the English language is changing over time? (I'll give you that it doesn't change at the same pace as HTML.)

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    If you don't use version control, you're, in fact, slowing and then stopping the evolution.
    We use version control. The spec is currently at revision 5836. So just consider the name to be HTML5836.

    WHATWG slowing and stopping the evolution? That's a new one; we've rather been blamed (or praised) about the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    I mean, just read this. They start by saying: "we want the change, if nothing is changing":

    and then they go "we will contradict our self every other phrase":
    Hmm. Yeah, the FAQ is a bit bluntly written as opposed to entirely accurately. I've updated the FAQ with a more accurate statement for the "stop making changes".

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    Moronic, really. I mean, at some point, all sections must complete, all parts of the spec mature. What then?
    What about browsers? At some point, all bugs must be fixed and there are no new features to add. What then? Or are there always going to be bugs and new features to add? I think so, for so long as the Web is not replaced by something better and dies, at which point the HTML spec will die with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    What about "is never complete part"?
    It'll be complete when it is obsolete because the Web has been replaced with something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    I'll tell you what about it: cheap philosophy.

    WHATWG is destined to fail. Their ideas and their specs are moronic and amateuresc.
    You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I must say your argument doesn't convince me. (But that's hardly surprising since I've been involved in this for longer than my professional career. )
    Simon Pieters

  14. #64
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Karpie View Post
    Huzzah, so all the cruft already there and any cruft that happens to get added can never be removed.

    Right. The bad part of backwards compatibility. Just look at the <plaintext> element, which was obsoleted in the very first HTML spec, but is still supported by browsers and thus specified in the current spec. (It's invalid to use, though; we can always declare bad features invalid while browsers still have to support them.)
    Simon Pieters

  15. #65
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    47°27′35″N 26°18′0″E
    Posts
    1,789
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    How do you deal with disputes about the English language? How can you be sure that your point is a definitive one when the English language is changing over time? (I'll give you that it doesn't change at the same pace as HTML.)
    Well, the English language is not the only one that suffers from modernisation. Which is not the point here. Since we talk about oranges and apples.





    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    We use version control. The spec is currently at revision 5836. So just consider the name to be HTML5836.
    I would, but then again they said just HTML. Another oxyMORONIC.




    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    WHATWG slowing and stopping the evolution? That's a new one; we've rather been blamed (or praised) about the opposite.
    Neh, neh, neh, neh, nehhhh... Mind you, I said the lack of versioning will do that. You... politician, you





    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    What about browsers? At some point, all bugs must be fixed and there are no new features to add. What then? Or are there always going to be bugs and new features to add? I think so, for so long as the Web is not replaced by something better and dies, at which point the HTML spec will die with it.
    You... politician, you





    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    It'll be complete when it is obsolete because the Web has been replaced with something else.
    That's pretty far fetched, to think WHATWG and its specs will last that long.




    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I must say your argument doesn't convince me. (But that's hardly surprising since I've been involved in this for longer than my professional career. )
    True. That's why I'm saying: WHATWG are children let loose. They will be soon smacked down by reality. And, my guess, these are the muddy waters from which something else will emerge. Something serious, and HTML (5 or Fred) will remain a hox.

  16. #66
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    Their ideas and their specs are moronic and amateuresc.
    We're definitely on the same page here. Top to bottom this disaster of a 'specification' they are pushing reeks of 'gee ain't it neat' bull, bandwidth hogging nonsense sold in the name of reducing bandwidth, and seems to exist for the sole purpose of placating the people who don't write their HTML properly in the first place. You know, the people who wrap DIV around EVERYTHING whether it's needed or not, endless pointless redundant classes, can't be bothered to learn to use the numbered heading tags properly, and still vomit up HTML 3.2 any old way, slap a tranny doctype on it and call it HTML 4... Literally that seems to be who it's for.

    It is PAINFULLY obvious that everyone behind it failed to even understand the point of the STRICT versions of the 4/X1 specs, and in an age where most people STILL fail to use semantic markup and can't be bothered to learn more than 2/3rds the tags in the specification, adding more tags and attributes is NOT the answer! More than anything it's undoing all the progress of STRICT is what truly grinds my gears. This sleaze code together and let's blend all the rules into a giant hodge-podge of possibilities (where you can mix 3.2, 4 tranny, 4 strict, x1 tranny and x1 strict together any old way) is just promoting more bad habits that will result in more confusing poorly coded pages.

    Of course mind you I'm a Wirth language fan, so I like rules, guidelines, and restrictions on how code should be built instead of the slap together needlessly cryptic garbage any old way attitude that goes with your C family languages.

    Much of the problem with HTML5 also comes from them slapping underneath the umbrella a bunch of stuff that has NOTHING to do with markup. HTML 5 doesn't just refer to the actual HTML -- but a whole bunch of other "API" that really have no business being put under the HTML name. Even some of the tags have no business even existing AS tags... Take CANVAS for example... an element that exists SOLELY for javascript, in which case shouldn't said javascript just be able to be applied to ANY element? There is zero reason for that to even warrant the use of a new tag! (and frankly it would be a hell of a lot more useful if canvas was just a sub-element on the DOM of every element)

    Likewise there's the outright redundancies -- many of the tags that were deprecated (and were supposed to be obsoleted eventually) were removed NOT because they were non-semantic, but because they were redundant to existing tags -- with some tags modified to replace the functionality of proprietary tags... MENU and DIR for example were pulled as redundant to UL... now MENU is back in a form that has SOMETHING to do with forms (!?!) that I still can't figure out what that's even for... APPLET was dropped for OBJECT, which was also supposed to replace the proprietary BGSOUND and EMBED elements, with even IMG on the chopping block for it too was redundant to OBJECT... so naturally do they attach all those nice new scripting controls to OBJECT, the element that allows you to add and remove support for file formats on the fly? OF COURSE NOT. No, they add AUDIO and VIDEO in such a manner that you're pretty much stuck using whatever formats each browser maker bothers to hard-code into their software. Oh yeah, some improvement there. Sure, rather than ride the browser makers asses on fixing the existing element and making it behave consistently cross browser, let's give them the tools to implement vendor lock-in for each browser makers favorite pet codec. That'll make EVERYTHING better.

    NOT!!!

    Of course I get a laugh how all the people who usually kvetch about all the "bloated" features hardcoded into Opera are the first to get in line to support AUDIO and VIDEO.

    Off Topic:

    Oh, and here's a tip -- if the browser is roughly the same memory footprint, size and speed as everyone else's baseline WITH the extra functionality already built it, It's not bloated, the competition is!


    Even the new allegedly semantic elements are rubbish... SECTION for example... What's a DIV? It means "division" -- it exists to divide the content into SECTIONS... making SECTION a redundant tag! Other elements like "HEADER" apply meanings you shouldn't even need on elements if you bother understanding how numbered headings are supposed to work -- but of course with pretty much EVERYONE failing to grasp the simplest of concepts by way of skipping over numbers, increasing the number when it's not a subsection of the one preceeding it, and in general barfing up code any old way, it's no surprise to see such idiocy added to the spec... even NAV is useless garbage, seeming to exist for the sole purpose of people who didn't get the point of accesskeys, fail to grasp what makes .jumpto menus superior, or just plain feel the overwhelming need to wrap an element around their UL's for NO GOOD REASON. I swear every time I see <div class="nav"><ul> I feel the need to backhand somebody, so <nav><ul> is just more pointless bloat!

    Top to bottom HTML5 makes me ask "and the advantage of this is what exactly?!?"

    ... and the answer appears to be "Well now you can sleaze out your code any old way"... yeah, some improvement... Though I suspect that's why they started slapping all the other API's under it's name -- at least SOME of those introduce something useful.

  17. #67
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    47°27′35″N 26°18′0″E
    Posts
    1,789
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi ds60, long time no see. Good to see you back, we've missed you here.


    The problem that I see with HTML5 and the pretending it brings along: as you said, 'till now nobody stopped you to "sleaze out your code any old way". BUT... you had, if asked, opinions on it as a bad code practice that needs improvements. All backed up by solid specs.

    With HTML5 it seems that you are legitimate going around your code any weird way possible. Even more so since, in order to push HTML5, all rules are broken by UA makers.

    And this encourages bad attitude like: "it's OK to use JS to simulate HTML5". They have opened the doors to promiscuity but they wanted to open the door to easiness. Well, guess what, people's minds are dirty!

  18. #68
    SitePoint Wizard rguy84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noonnope View Post
    And this encourages bad attitude like: "it's OK to use JS to simulate HTML5".
    The team lead and I were talking about this an hour ago
    I''ll get a shirt that says "JS + jQuery = My savior" lmao
    Ryan B | My Blog | Twitter

  19. #69
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    A living document which is continually updated.
    I think the point is that removing versioning steals a valuable tool for us to use when we talk with each other. When IE sat on version 6 for all those years, we had a standard that it was failing, CSS2.1. The fact that we had a standard allowed people much smarter than me to create the ACID2 test, and we could say that this group of browsers were ACID2 compliant, but IE6 was not. Then MS finally came out with IE7. Was that the end? No, people fired it up and that didn't pass ACID2 either, so less than a year later we had IE8 which finally passed the ACID2 test. None of this would have happened without a standard, worse, if HTML floats around and means one thing today and another tomorrow, there's no fixed point that you can hold browser vendors to. You can't create an ACID5 test, if there's no standard to base it on.

    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    How do you deal with disputes about the English language? How can you be sure that your point is a definitive one when the English language is changing over time? (I'll give you that it doesn't change at the same pace as HTML.)
    I would say this hits one of the key nails on the head. Do you want to program in English? Or Spanish? Or Urdu? Or Mandarin? Do you want to have to write programs that don't just "do" what they're supposed to do, but which have to interpret the linguistic gymnastics of spoken language? Human languages are changing all the time and they "human" languages because we're the only machines on the planet with hardware and firmware that's sophisticated enough to make sense of these complex and changing grammars. Can you imagine trying to get your computer not only to understand them on any given day, but to make sure they work for more than a few days as new idioms and conventions are introduced, and THEN... oh by the way, actually try to address your problem domain with it? This is the entire reason that we have AGREED UPON STANDARDS. And a "standard" that changes all the time defeats the entire purpose of having a common point of reference because I don't know if any particular item in the standard will still be there tomorrow.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  20. #70
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you're getting things confused

    Think of HTML as a dictionary; how HTML should be used right now. Let's face it, some people and HTML generators are never going to self-close their img tags or put quotes around attributes - but all browsers cope if they don't, so you might as well say "You don't need to put quotes around attributes" in the spec. If you want to use quotes religiously, that's your choice, that's also fine by the spec

    They can't take out the bit which makes it less strict because like it or not, there's already websites out there which don't have quotes. That's the backwards compatible bit: like you can't remove a word from the dictionary just because you don't like it anymore. You can mark it as obsolete (as some HTML tags and attributes are marked as obsolete), but you can never really delete them: because they're used

    So think of it as "how browsers behave and how you should use HTML" (just like a dictionary is "How you should use this language" rather than "a spec that browsers must do" - because let's face it, I doubt any browser has or will ever follow the whole of HTML to the letter - this was even before the time of WHATWG

    And instead of asking "Does browser x support HTML5?", shouldn't the better question be "Does browser x support h.264 video?"? Because at the time I might want to make a video site, so don't care if Internet Explorer has canvas support

    (Oh, and the English language changes very often)

  21. #71
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,597
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by clairs View Post
    (Oh, and the English language changes very often)
    The English language has changed very little in the past 400 years. Documents that were written in the 1600s are still mostly understandable today although a few words that are no longer used are often misinterpreted (eg. wherefore is an obsolete synonym for why).

    It was in the 1500s that the English language last changed at any significant rate and only specialists are able to read documents written in English from before that change. Effectively there was a full version number shift in English during that period with many words being completely dropped from the language (not just marked obsolete) and the pronunciation of many of the surviving words changing (eg. before that there were no silent letters in the word 'knight').

    To relate this back to HTML - the sorts of changes that are being proposed for HTML5 (or whatever you want to call it) are more of the order where they ought to be called 4.1, 4.2 et). Of course if they were being done as XHTML rather than HTML then each could be done as a separate eXtension.
    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="^$">

  22. #72
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy TomB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Milton Keynes, UK
    Posts
    988
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    The English language has changed very little in the past 400 years. Documents that were written in the 1600s are still mostly understandable today although a few words that are no longer used are often misinterpreted (eg. wherefore is an obsolete synonym for why).

    .
    Have you read Shakespeare? It's understandable, but to say "The English language has changed very little" is a vast understatement.

  23. #73
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,597
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TomB View Post
    Have you read Shakespeare? It's understandable, but to say "The English language has changed very little" is a vast understatement.
    It is when you compare it to the amount that the English language changed in the 50 years before Shakespeare which Shakespeare would have had little chance of understanding. In that 50 years the language changed by many many many times the amount that it has changed by in the hundreds of years since.

    Anyway if you don't understand Shakespeare then you don't know English all that well since Shakespeare is taught as standard English Literature texts in schools. Shakespeare wrote in what we currently call Modern English.
    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="^$">

  24. #74
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,042
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    For those of use who understand the importance of semantic code, yet have to deal with the realities of technology constraints many of the new tags such as; nav, article, section, header offer a more specific, solution to solving common problems. In that respect I am happy to see them introduced into the language. Certain patterns have been established and those tags do a good job providing a level of semantic meaning other than a div. A div is a good generic element but nav, section, article provide a increased level of semantic meaning for common problems that normally require some type of generic element such as; division or list.

    Furthermore, dealing dynamic content I am very happy to see headings relative to layout elements rather than the entire document. I can't say how many times I have pondered the correct heading level taking into consideration possible changes or moving things around. This is especially a problem with modular architecture where a list may be displayed on several pages with the same code, reducing replication and sticking to the dry principle. Headings relative to specific elements will make future content management system development more semantic in respect to things being able to be moved around such as; blocks while the headings for the block remain relative to the block area.

    As with anything adding a level of complexity always increases room for error. However, I don't think that is grounds for dismissing ideas that can improve the approach of solving common patterns as many newly proposed elements do. Many new elements seem to exist for the purpose of providing meaning for common patterns and that I am happy to see. I mean if something is a nav than why shouldn't it be placed in a nav element, that kinda makes sense and also provides a extra semantic element for applying styling. Some may look at that as a bad thing but I think its positive given the practical reality of the technology alongside client, designer expectations.

    The problem the way I see it is that many HTML elements such as; div provide to generic of a meaning. Common patterns have been defined and "HTML5" is an attempt to provide solutions to those problems using a more specific means than the current specification can provide. To me that is heading in the right direction, moving past this "caveman" language and something more concrete based on the problems faced throughout the entire web based paradigm.
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  25. #75
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1 View Post
    I think the point is that removing versioning steals a valuable tool for us to use when we talk with each other. When IE sat on version 6 for all those years, we had a standard that it was failing, CSS2.1. The fact that we had a standard allowed people much smarter than me to create the ACID2 test, and we could say that this group of browsers were ACID2 compliant, but IE6 was not. Then MS finally came out with IE7. Was that the end? No, people fired it up and that didn't pass ACID2 either, so less than a year later we had IE8 which finally passed the ACID2 test. None of this would have happened without a standard, worse, if HTML floats around and means one thing today and another tomorrow, there's no fixed point that you can hold browser vendors to. You can't create an ACID5 test, if there's no standard to base it on.
    Acid2 could have been written the same even if CSS had been a living standard. Acid5 can also be written against the HTML spec just fine. Just choose parts of the spec that are stable when writing the test. Acid2 and Acid3 required thought and coordination anyway, and needed bug fixing afterwards. Case study: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1137799947&count=1

    So I'm not at all convinced that frozen snapshots are at all helpful in writing Acid tests. (You are aware that it's the same person who edits the HTML spec as who wrote Acid2 and Acid3, right?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1 View Post
    I would say this hits one of the key nails on the head. Do you want to program in English?
    HTML is not a programming language.
    Simon Pieters


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
  •