HTML 5

JavaScript and client side scripting.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Christopher
Site Administrator
Posts: 13596
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: New York, NY, US

HTML 5

Post by Christopher »

Here's interesting info from W3C on what's new in HTML 5.

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/htm ... rview.html
(#10850)
matthijs
DevNet Master
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:57 pm

Post by matthijs »

I read it on Anne's website today as well. Indeed interesting. Just hope HTML5 will end up a real improvement, also considering accessibility. There's quite some discussion going on about this. As Roger says
a potentially dangerous principle is “Pave the cowpaths”, which says:

When a practice is already widespread among authors, consider adopting it rather than forbidding it or inventing something new.
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

Gaah, more tags!!

As I'm reading this, I can't help but wonder... Did the "banishment" of table layouts in web development result from W3C, or an intuitive web designer?
User avatar
daedalus__
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:52 pm

Post by daedalus__ »

This spec looks hot.
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

Whoa! <header>, <section>, <nav>, <article>, and <footer> look like they'll finally get us off of using <div> tags for everything! That's great! :D
User avatar
Ambush Commander
DevNet Master
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: New Jersey, US

Post by Ambush Commander »

Most of what I see in HTML 5 looks good.

However, I am concerned about the strict-ification of content models, even more so than what XHTML 2.0 does. According to Anne's document, HTML 5 stipulates that <div> can either contain only block elements or inline elements, not a mixture of both. Maybe my perception is wrong, but I believe this will cause a lot of currently standards-compliant documents to not work anymore, which seems to go against HTML 5's philosophy of backwards-compatibility. I don't really buy into their argument, and would like to say that this sort of behavior makes it even harder for validators to do their job.
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

They're going to change DIVS???? They are, quite possibly, the most commonly used element in websites today. They can't just change something like that... That's just... wrong.
matthijs
DevNet Master
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:57 pm

Post by matthijs »

Don't worry about your current sites people. By the time HTML5 gets supported widely, you'll either have been working in a completely different field for 9 years or if you have stuck around web design you'll have redesigned your site at least 6 times in between.
zcorpan
Forum Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:36 am

Post by zcorpan »

Ambush Commander wrote:However, I am concerned about the strict-ification of content models, even more so than what XHTML 2.0 does. According to Anne's document, HTML 5 stipulates that <div> can either contain only block elements or inline elements, not a mixture of both.
Correct.
Ambush Commander wrote:Maybe my perception is wrong, but I believe this will cause a lot of currently standards-compliant documents to not work anymore, which seems to go against HTML 5's philosophy of backwards-compatibility.
No, current documents that work today will continue to work. Your standards compliant HTML4 document will continue to be a standards compliant HTML4 document. It is not and never was a conforming HTML5 document, if for no other reason than the doctype being an HTML4 doctype.

Requirements for authors have no bearing whatsoever on browsers. Saying that something that was previously conforming is non-conforming in HTML5 does not affect backwards compatibility.
Ambush Commander wrote:I don't really buy into their argument, and would like to say that this sort of behavior makes it even harder for validators to do their job.
What do you mean? The requirement is not very hard to check for in a conformance checker. Henri Sivonen has already implemented it.

Or do you mean that it makes conformance checking less useful as a QA tool for you? If so, could you elaborate on that point?
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

Ooo, me likes the API stuff lots. I like this spec. It is neat and looks to be a lot more developer friendly.
User avatar
Ambush Commander
DevNet Master
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
Location: New Jersey, US

Post by Ambush Commander »

What do you mean? The requirement is not very hard to check for in a conformance checker. Henri Sivonen has already implemented it.
Reading over the spec, the described behavior looks good and quite explicit. I retract my concern.
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

When can we use it??? When can we use it??? ^_^
zcorpan
Forum Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:36 am

Post by zcorpan »

Ambush Commander wrote:Reading over the spec, the described behavior looks good and quite explicit. I retract my concern.
Ok.
superdezign wrote:When can we use it??? When can we use it??? ^_^
You can use new features when they are implemented in browsers. As of today, it basically boils down to <canvas> that is widely implemented (only IE doesn't support it natively, but there are scripts to emulate support).
User avatar
Benjamin
Site Administrator
Posts: 6935
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 10:24 pm

Post by Benjamin »

They still didn't bring the target attribute back. :cry:
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

astions wrote:They still didn't bring the target attribute back. :cry:
Well, we've still got JavaScript if you absolutely must open in a new window.
When you look at the additions though, they are implementing things that used to require JavaScript. Like the "required" attribute... that one's interesting.
Post Reply