Page 1 of 1

HTML 5

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:00 pm
by Christopher
Here's interesting info from W3C on what's new in HTML 5.

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/htm ... rview.html

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:06 pm
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.

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:09 pm
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?

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:14 pm
by daedalus__
This spec looks hot.

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:34 pm
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

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:35 pm
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.

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:54 pm
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.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:32 am
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.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:42 am
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?

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:08 pm
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.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:11 pm
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.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:51 pm
by superdezign
When can we use it??? When can we use it??? ^_^

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:20 am
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).

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:23 pm
by Benjamin
They still didn't bring the target attribute back. :cry:

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:31 pm
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.