If that's the future, I'm fine RIGHT HERE. Newer isn't always better, and it's not like the old specifications (that are ACTUALLY specifications) are going anywhere.
... and with 99% of stock templates being asshat rubbish only nubes are typically dumb enough to try to use, it's not exactly surprising these are the folks embracing this nonsense. That turdpress now defaults to it along with the rest of their markup that screams "we have no business making HTML or CSS" it only further compounds the issue.
I don't find it so because they are nothing more than extra tags in the markup that are likely wrapping tags that ALREADY HAVE meanings. More code is not the answer, just as more tags is not the answer.
The majority of people writing code right now are blissfully unaware of two-thirds the tags we're supposed to be using; LEGEND, LABEL, TH, THEAD, TBODY, CAPTION, DEL, FIELDSET, BLOCKQUOTE -- most people writing code can't even keep PRE and CODE straight, and waste time wrapping tags that already have meanings in extra elements like DL or tables.... THROWING MORE TAGS AT THEM IS NOT THE ANSWER when people can't even keep straight what we already have!
Much less their all being redundant -- STRICT was ABOUT removing redundancies and getting rid of browser specific crap; HTML 5 is about adding redundancies and getting down on one's knees in front of the proverbial equine known as the browser makers.
I'm not saying they're DIV tags, I'm saying they are pointless extra wrappers that shouldn't even be in the markup in the first place if people would bother having logical document structure and using numbered headings with horizontal rules PROPERLY...
It's probably not going anywhere, there's just no legitimate reason to use it apart from nube predation, selling more books and seats at lectures, and giving the suits a new buzzword they don't actually understand. It most certainly is NOT about writing sites in a better manner or actually making development easier/clearer/cleaner/faster.
Would you want the car you're driving your family around in to be built by committee using a draft specification? Or would you prefer tried and true methods that work in the here and now and are unlikely to ever break moving forward.
... and even if it does finally leave 'draft' it offers no benefits other than bloating out pages for NOTHING, further fracturing the already fractured codec scene, and pissing all over accessibility in the name of improving it. Does the term "snake oil" ring a bell?
While I hope so, I think with so many people on-board it's going to be an uphill fight to stamp out this idiocy just as we STILL have people today sleazing out tranny with their heads stuck up 1997's backside... which is EXACTLY what we need to do with it; STAMP IT OUT -- We need to spread the word that this sick new trend offers ZERO real world improvements.
That or wait for HTML 6 to come in both transitional and STRICT, with STRICT deprecating most of what's in 5.
Actually it makes perfect sense -- because all the asshat bull we've been told NOT to do since STRICT was introduced is now perfectly fine and acceptable in 5. Again, the loosening of the structural rules and undoing of everything STRICT gave us is precisely why HTML 5 is meant for the people who were still writing HTML 3.2 and slapping a 4 tranny doctype on it. Now they can wrap HTML 5's lip-service around it and continue to sleaze out their crappy code any old way; GO PROGRESS!
Remember, 5 is documentative, not authoritive -- which is why it's an insult to engineers everywhere to even call this bull a specification!
... and is EXACTLY why I reject HTML 5 outright. Call me when someone who understood the point of STRICT is put in charge and they go back to saying what you SHOULD use and deprecate all the garbage you shouldn't! Maybe remove all the stupid new redundant nonsense while at it?
Until then I'm sticking with XHTML 1.0 Strict... STRICT for saying "don't use things you shouldn't be using" and XHTML for the consistent/improved structural rules.
BULLCOOKIES -- that is NOT an attitude consistent with trying to achieve PROGRESS.... as George Bernard Shaw said:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therein, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
We need to start a "just say no campaign" -- this is your website; this is your website on HTML 5 -- any questions?
Gehugafugah?!? XHTML 1.0 works just fine within it's purpose all the way back to IE 5.0 and Nyetscape 4 -- that's what it's for, a formulation to allow HTML to be parsed both by HTML parsers and XML parsers; it was NEVER meant to be a full XML formulation and if you follow the compatibility guidelines for it, it works just fine. The only reason to choose XHTML 1 over other specs is the more consistent structural rules.
Now, if you're talking XHTML 2 or that XML application idiocy, then sure... but that's crap that really has no point being used on the web in the first place!
Or we could just nuke the WhatWG from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
In other words feel good nonsense and "status quo for the win" -- so much for progress.
I find it to be the opposite of hard work -- because it just further justifies sleazing pages out any old way to the point you might as well go back to using HTML 3.2 and slapping a 4 tranny doctype on it... Net change or improvement ZERO!
What's wrong with 3? Admittedly the new column stuff is a train wreck, but what's available in the here and now is useful and gracefully degrades. Far, FAR less to complain about than the unmitigated idiocy HTML 5 brings to the table.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Ok, we're done here -- if you are using that fat bloated cryptic idiotic nonsense that bills itself as "making cross browser scripting easier" when 90% of it's codebase is blot for useless ugly pain in the ass animooted nonsense; In fact being the driving factor in why so many websites that used to be useful are now useless to myself and many others....
Just wow man... WOW. Take all the hate I have for HTML 5, and multiply it tenfold for the idiotic jquery BULL!!!
Help, yeah... that's what 5 is for... NOT
You mean XML, not XHTML -- the point of XHTML was to be a reformulation of HTML that XML could parse -- it was NOT TO TURN HTML INTO A FULL XML IMPLEMENTATION!!! -- at least not in the 1.0 version of the specification. Made up ******** tags in fact were such a inconsistent mess it's why X2 was backed away from faster than light.
I see people making that same nonsensical claim over and over again -- and all I can say is "have you even bothered READING much less COMPREHENDING the XHTML specification?!?" -- that's the same bekaptah fiction as the people who think XHTML should mean they can go <div /> or that what serving it as text/html somehow magically makes it not be XHTML... When the specification that says what XHTML is says text/html is valid, shorttags only works on EMPTY elements (DIV is never an "Empty" element), and it says quite clearly:
XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4 [HTML4]. XHTML family document types are XML based, and ultimately are designed to work in conjunction with XML-based user agents.
XML based, NOT A FULL XML IMPLEMENTATION - it's a reproduction of HTML 4 in a XML namepsace -- that's it. People seem to want to read more into it which just isn't there!
Extra DOM element for nothing since you'd still need the block level containers inside it (like the list) at which point why not just make it an attribute for lists instead of polluting the DOM making scripts run slower and have CSS have to work harder?
'nav' -- like most of the new allegedly semantic structural containers seems to be JUST for the people who were slapping a div around their UL for nothing and some vague accessibility crap that honestly, is wasting markup on way too small a portion of the audience then sending it to everyone; at which point... file it alongside the idiotic rubbish of using IE conditional comments for CSS -- or WORSE, to determine what classes are applied to an HTML tag. (a sure fire indicator whoever is writing the page needs to learn more CSS first!)
Of course I even hate the name "nav" because it's uselessly vague; I hate it as a class or ID, I hate it as a tag, because every blasted anchor on a page is 'navigation'. It does not clearly define what it is... and it's just been encouraging people who don't bother reading the specification to turn their menus into run-on sentences by removing their lists and block level containers.
Goes back to something Dan Schulz once said (even had as a sig here for a while)
the people who used to write endless nested tables for no reason now just write endless nested DIV for no reason.
Exactly the crowd for whom HTML 5 seems tailored -- can't possibly leverage the existing semantic tags for meaning and target those -- of course not. Now they have allegedly semantic tags they can wrap around their existing semantic tags for no reason...
Yeah, that's a real improvement.
Something sucks, you come out and say it suck, you get off your ass and tell people it sucks and actively try to prevent it from taking something you used to find useful and letting the sleazeball scam artists pissing all over it and lead people down the gardent path to failure with their snake oil.
Basically: Lead, follow or get out of the way. That's how we make the world a better place instead of this soft, drum circle feel-good status-quo nonsense. "If you can't say anything nice" being a cop-out by thin skinned wussies who can't be bothered to get motivated about anything but complaining about the sheep dogs trying to protect them from the wolves.
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Yakko Warner: "Either that or you're at the Ice Capades."