The main problem for me is that to be a standard it has to be treated in a similar way across the major browsers or, at the very least it has to have a standard applied to it other than "This is cool and people already do it lots of other ways, we've gotta stay fresh". HTML will never be improved by diversifying how it works and what it does to the point of completely changing or abandoning what it is.
With all that said, I guess I would then have to allow <canvas> in there too. Just as <object> is just a tag who usually just holds some Flash, <canvas> is a place in the DOM where a particular API can be used.
Someone wrote a "book" on how to make a Web App. It comes with some "examples" (most are not real), one of which is a map app where there were such recommendations as "use HTML5 placeholders to give users information" (instead of labels, and the image shown has zero labels), "hide navigation elements" (this page I must be too stupid to use because I clicked around the pages randomly until I accidentally discovered I was supposed to click on the edges of the book pages) and "use canvas to draw the map". After this book stated that CSS3 was HTML5, I skimmed further a bit before leaving.
I think that really comes down to editors just letting authors spout whatever nonsense they wish, without doing any real fact checking, because the book will sell to the uneducated masses that buy into all the hype. That's why I generally only get computer books from a small handful of publishes that generally know what they are talking about (O'Reily and Sitepoint being two of the biggies). Other than my small group of publishers, I'll only pick up books by well respected authorities, or ones which I know enough about already that I can fact check it myself. =p
Though if I do have free time, I'll go to the local library and browse through the public collection of HTML/CSS knowledge. It's quite humorous what you can see in there sometimes . I'll have to go back there sometime next week and see if I can find this one book that had a good bit of laughs in it.
Again, see CANVAS -- useless without scripting, so why couldn't it simply have been a SCRIPTING side extension to the DOM only? There's no reason for it to even have a new tag, and it would be a LOT more useful if we could simply go something like:
Hence why there was no such thing as a "document object model" in HTML until CSS and Scripting entered the scene? You know, the entire reason that until HTML 5 there was ZERO mention of the DOM in the specification since HTML by itself SHOULDN'T NEED one? Nor do browsers if all they do is HTML -- it's just really convenient once you start applying CSS and pretty much needed for scripting... which is why it should be in the SCRIPTING part of the specification as it's the only thing (other than the browser itself) that "needs" it. It has absolutely nothing to do with "markup" or writing good markup.
Which is why it's not in the HTML 4.01 spec. There's no reason for it to be there.
They (WHATWG, and now also W3C) do not limit the HTML spec to "markup" anymore. That's what changed.Originally Posted by crusty
I can only guess... that it had something to do with how Apple implemented their originally proprietary drawing idea? Could ask the canvas guys...Originally Posted by crusty
Well, here's one answer I got:
"Why not an element?
Or, perhaps more usefully, it's a script-generated <img>. It seems appropriate for it to have a tag just like <img> does."
While I agree mostly DS, I do have to defend them a bit. If they didn't put it with HTML5, where would they put it? Make another new specification? That's all we need, more specifications and acronyms to keep track of. =p
Slapping them all under HTML just makes it bigger and harder to navigate; and blurs the line between things that are distinct and separate, no matter if they work together. I file this under the stupidity of removing versioning from it -- you can tell NOBODY with an engineering background has ANYTHING to do with the WhatWG!
Sure. In the ideal world it would be nice to have everything neatly organized in it's own little box. Problem is, it just doesn't work. It's been almost 15 years since HTML 4 was released. And what has happened since then? Lot's of diversions into different ways to extend it but no real progress. The ecmascript is great except no one follows it so you need something like jquery for even the most basic stuff. And css for layouts? Custom style sheets for each and every version of every browser. Not real fun to maintain.
It was the above chaos that pretty much caused the formation of whatwg in the first place. Their mission statement is quite clear:
Best approach? Maybe not. But thanks to these guys, those of us that actually build sites, can now put 'required' on our input elements with a reasonable expectation that modern browsers will properly deal with it.This specification is limited to providing a semantic-level markup language and associated semantic-level scripting APIs for authoring accessible pages on the Web ranging from static documents to dynamic applications.
Only took 15 years but I'll take it.
So trusting. It's kinda sweet.I stick to chrome, Google account integration as well as a few other things that are cool. So no matter where I am I have all my stuff just there.
Always have a local backup of everything important to you. Then make backups of that backup. And be cool when the US gov't tells Google to give them all your information. And be okay with the server holding your information being shut down by the FBI because someone else using a Google service on that server has something with supposed copyright infringement.
When I use Chrome it tells me, in the upper righthand corner, that I'm "missing out" on something because I'm not signed into Google Chrome. Lawlz if I ever log into a browser hooked up to a large corporation with known privacy issues.