SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 42 of 42
  1. #26
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,112
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanReese View Post
    I'd really just prefer everything to be done at once, everything supported at once.
    But if a feature is finished and ready to go, why not use it? It's like computers: every year some new feature/technology becomes available. Do you want to wait ten years to get a computer—when all of the great ideas people have now have been mastered an implemented?
    Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | Web Design Tips | Free Contact Form

    Forum Usage: Tips on posting code samples, images and more

    Forrest Gump: "IE is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

  2. #27
    SitePoint Enthusiast Belsnickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chico, CA
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  3. #28
    billycundiff{float:left;} silver trophybronze trophy RyanReese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Whiteford, Maryland, United States
    Posts
    13,564
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    But if a feature is finished and ready to go, why not use it? It's like computers: every year some new feature/technology becomes available. Do you want to wait ten years to get a computer—when all of the great ideas people have now have been mastered an implemented?
    If it's supported everywhere, then by all means I'll use it, if it's needed of course.

    The patches of support we have right now, wokring in some but not all, leads me to not even want to mess with it at all, at least not for a while until more support is given.
    Twitter-@Ryan_Reese09
    http://www.ryanreese.us -Always looking for web design/development work

  4. #29
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,112
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    A few little things like identifying an input as an email field are handy for people using smart phones. That's about all I've tried.
    Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | Web Design Tips | Free Contact Form

    Forum Usage: Tips on posting code samples, images and more

    Forrest Gump: "IE is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

  5. #30
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by crusty
    and the new javascript under it's banner -- NONE of which have anything to do with MARKUP.
    However, actually, the new Javascript APIs such as History and LocalStorage are, in fact, absolutely part of the HTML5 spec.

    This being, the WHATWG (and apparently also the W3C) thought it was a mistake that while HTML (and therefore rules about the DOM) were specified, Javascript was left as an afterthought. In HTML5, as they made changes to the DOM, changes to elements attributes, etc (notice the HTML4 spec lists which Javascript methods any given tag MAY have on it?), they realised they needed to include Javascript as a first-class citizen.

    In other words, the new Javascript stuff depends entirely on a new DOM, new native methods on tags both old and new, new properties on tags, and new default browser behaviours. Everything else we hear about being all awesome and new is called ecmascript5 and use strict and about a thousand new libraries popping up like molehills every month.

    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.

    Off Topic:

    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.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:


    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

  7. #32
    billycundiff{float:left;} silver trophybronze trophy RyanReese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Whiteford, Maryland, United States
    Posts
    13,564
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samanime View Post
    Off Topic:


    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
    Off Topic:


    Completely agree.

    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.
    Twitter-@Ryan_Reese09
    http://www.ryanreese.us -Always looking for web design/development work

  8. #33
    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 Stomme poes View Post
    However, actually, the new Javascript APIs such as History and LocalStorage are, in fact, absolutely part of the HTML5 spec.
    How so? "Big deal, they rely on the DOM" has WHAT exactly to do with making markup or the markup language? It's not like window.history.back and window.history.forward have ANYTHING to do with the markup on the page! Same goes for localStorage -- no associated HTML elements, useless without scripting enabled, so how the devil does it have ANYTHING to do with HTML?

    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:

    Code:
    <div id="drawSurface">
      This section requires Javascript's CANVAS extension
    </div>
    Code:
    var target=document.getElementByID(target);
    if (canvas.2dContext) var context=target.appendChild(canvas.2dContext);
    Which is pretty close to how I've been working with CANVAS anyways, since I've not been putting the tag in the markup when I use it. It doesn't need or warrant a tag, it just needs an object on the DOM -- and since the DOM pretty much should mean JACK to HTML itself... (being a scripting, CSS, and browser IMPLEMENTATION concept, NOT a HTML one).

    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.

  9. #34
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by RyanReese View Post
    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.
    Sounds like you get the same reaction to some books I do... which reminds me of Ian's video for HTML&CSS "the right way" where he talks about going into a bookstore.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wZAE_3L3HM

    Been there...

  10. #35
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by crusty
    they rely on the DOM" has WHAT exactly to do with making markup or the markup language?
    They (WHATWG, and now also W3C) do not limit the HTML spec to "markup" anymore. That's what changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by crusty
    CANVAS -- useless without scripting, so why couldn't it simply have been a SCRIPTING side extension to the DOM only?
    I can only guess... that it had something to do with how Apple implemented their originally proprietary drawing idea? Could ask the canvas guys...

  11. #36
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    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."

  12. #37
    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 Stomme poes View Post
    They (WHATWG, and now also W3C) do not limit the HTML spec to "markup" anymore. That's what changed.
    Which I think is what you're missing about what I'm saying -- as that's EXACTLY what I've been complaining about in regards to it. It's a STUPID CHANGE for NO good reason. Taking an already needlessly complex "specification" and slapping unrelated crap under it's banner just makes it so NOBODY can follow or understand markup, much less the other stuff they've added to it... at least not by using the specification as your guide.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  14. #39
    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 samanime View Post
    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
    In the ECMAScript specificiation where it belongs... and WAS. It's not making "another new specification" it's leaving a separate specification where it was, as a separate specification. You want to learn about MARKUP, you go to the HyperText MARKUP Language spec... you want to learn about scripting, you go to the ECMASCRIPT specification, you want to learn about CSS, you go to the Cascading Style Sheet specification.

    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!

  15. #40
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Huntsville AL
    Posts
    689
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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:
    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.
    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.

    Only took 15 years but I'll take it.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Member Cythes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Drifting between time and space.
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Then it would really live up to the nickname Internet Exploder, wouldn't it?
    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.

    Thermite for Exploder.... sounds like fun xD

  17. #42
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    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.
    So trusting. It's kinda sweet.

    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.


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
  •