HTML 5
Moderator: General Moderators
- Christopher
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 13596
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: New York, NY, US
HTML 5
Here's interesting info from W3C on what's new in HTML 5.
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/htm ... rview.html
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/htm ... rview.html
(#10850)
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.
- superdezign
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 4135
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm
- superdezign
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 4135
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
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.
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.
- superdezign
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 4135
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm
Correct.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.
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.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.
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.
What do you mean? The requirement is not very hard to check for in a conformance checker. Henri Sivonen has already implemented it.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.
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?
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
- Ambush Commander
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: New Jersey, US
- superdezign
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 4135
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm
Ok.Ambush Commander wrote:Reading over the spec, the described behavior looks good and quite explicit. I retract my concern.
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).superdezign wrote:When can we use it??? When can we use it??? ^_^
- superdezign
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 4135
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm
Well, we've still got JavaScript if you absolutely must open in a new window.astions wrote:They still didn't bring the target attribute back.
When you look at the additions though, they are implementing things that used to require JavaScript. Like the "required" attribute... that one's interesting.