HTML5

Discussion in 'HTML' started by William Gill, Feb 18, 2011.

  1. William Gill

    William Gill Guest

    This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
    figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
    HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
    in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?
    William Gill, Feb 18, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. William Gill

    C A Upsdell Guest

    On 2011-02-18 13:22, William Gill wrote:
    > This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
    > figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
    > HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
    > in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?


    How many of your visitors have browsers which don't support the HTML 5
    features that you want to use? And are you willing to exclude that many
    visitors from your production site?
    C A Upsdell, Feb 18, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. William Gill

    William Gill Guest

    On 2/18/2011 2:24 PM, C A Upsdell wrote:
    > On 2011-02-18 13:22, William Gill wrote:
    >> This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
    >> figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
    >> HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
    >> in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?

    >
    > How many of your visitors have browsers which don't support the HTML 5
    > features that you want to use? And are you willing to exclude that many
    > visitors from your production site?
    >

    Duh!

    Good point, and good migration index.

    Thanks.
    William Gill, Feb 18, 2011
    #3
  4. William Gill

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, William Gill <> wrote:
    > This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
    > figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
    > HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
    > in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?


    First you may use any version of html down to html 2 if it meets your
    needs. The w3c still has validators for older versions of html, and in
    general newer browsers support earlier versions of html - they just
    pile on more code as new versions come out. Unfortunately, as new
    versions arrive, they will let older code through even if you use the
    correct Doctype and even if the w3c validator shows errors. Some of
    the computer companies are pushing html5, but it appears to be mainly
    for $ and other interests of the companies, often in the media area.
    Google is now using html5 on their home pages. Unfortunately, after
    beating the drum for html5 and jumping the gun before html5 is even a
    recommendation, they make a huge number of html5 validation errors on
    their home pages as revealed at the experimental html5 checker at the
    w3c. Apple and Firefox have also jumped on the html5 bandwagon on many
    of their home pages. Apple has just a few validation errors, but the
    Firefox home pages in html5 usually validate. Many features of html5
    are not supported yet by many browsers in very common use. Consider
    Microsoft's IE browsers. The IE9-beta is the first IE browser to
    support the html5 video and audio elements. Only Vista and Windows 7
    OSs can be updated to IE9-beta, and there are still many XP OSs being
    used, especially in business. Many are likely to balk at upgrading to
    Windows 7 just so they can use IE9 beta. The top Windows 7 OS costs
    over $US 300, and the less fancy versions are far from cheap. You
    usually can get around this problem concerning audio and video in a
    html5 page by using somewhat modified conventional media code that
    requires players installed on the computer and not a "house" html5
    support built into the browser. In short, if you use html5 now for
    writing pages, you need to know html5 and how it is supported on
    various browsers very well and check your pages on many browsers still
    used. This is a somewhat moving target since changes are still being
    made in html5. I have written some media test pages in html5, and find
    little reason to do so. The only advantage I have found for video is
    that some such as Firefox and Opera, are using Ogg (.ogv) video as a
    "house" format. For example, you can use ogv on a html 4.01 strict
    page, but many will not have an Ogg player installed, and thus will
    not be abe to view it.
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 18, 2011
    #4
  5. William Gill

    Lewis Guest

    In message <ijmdch$6i5$-september.org>
    William Gill <> wrote:
    > This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
    > figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
    > HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
    > in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?


    Yes, for certain values of HTML5.

    The really sticking point is CSS3 (especially since CSS2.1 is still not
    completely supported in most browsers).

    --
    "Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing
    blood." - Mary Hirsch
    Lewis, Feb 21, 2011
    #5
  6. William Gill

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Lewis <> wrote:

    > In message <ijmdch$6i5$-september.org>
    > William Gill <> wrote:
    > > This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
    > > figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
    > > HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
    > > in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?

    >
    > Yes, for certain values of HTML5.
    >
    > The really sticking point is CSS3 (especially since CSS2.1 is still not
    > completely supported in most browsers).


    So, the strategy for clever but not reckless authors is to use
    CSS3 (at least the bits that are widely supported) but only where
    it degrades well if it does not work.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 21, 2011
    #6
  7. dorayme wrote:

    > So, the strategy for clever but not reckless authors is to use
    > CSS3 (at least the bits that are widely supported) but only where
    > it degrades well if it does not work.


    I would say that the statement applies even if you omit the digit "3".

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 21, 2011
    #7
  8. William Gill

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 2/18/2011 1:22 PM, William Gill wrote:
    > This may have already been discussed, or I may be just too thick to
    > figure it out myself, but since HTML5 is in "Working Draft" status and
    > HTML4 is at "Recommendation", are any of you doing any production work
    > in HTML5 yet, and when should I be making the transition?



    It is true that HTML5 is only in "draft" state, just as CSS2.1 and CSS3
    are. HTML5 and is the latest defacto standard, just as CSS2.1 and CSS3
    are. They are all usable and are being used as well by more and more web
    sites. HTML5 is incomplete as far as the new elements are concerned
    (specification and browser support). CSS 2.1 and CSS 3 also are not
    fully supported by all browsers.

    http://caniuse.com/

    is an excellent source to check on browsers' support (including mobile)
    for HTML5, CSS 2.1, CSS3, etc.

    For HTML5 use this doctype: <!DOCTYPE html> All browsers (that
    sniff doctype) support it, from IE5/Mac up. You can use the same
    HTML4.01 elements you used before because all HTML4.01 elements are
    still supported. The bonus is that you can also use the new elements
    available in HTML5, in as much as they are supported by all browsers,
    which you will have to keep track of until all settles down. There is
    nothing new about this - we've been doing this all along. The HTML5
    doctype is a reduction of the HTML4.01 Strict doctype down to the
    minimum required portions to satisfy legacy doctype sniffing (removes
    all the fluff). It also places the browsers into Standards Mode. There
    is only the one in HTML5. Nothing new here as well - we've been told to
    use Strict doctype for all new documents for quite some time now.

    You may use the same markup as for HTML 4.01 Strict if you prefer, or
    pick up shortcuts that HTML5 offers. If you want to use some of the new
    HTML5 elements, which it will support, just realize that some of them
    are not yet supported by all browsers.

    --
    Gus
    Gus Richter, Feb 21, 2011
    #8
  9. Gus Richter wrote:

    > It is true that HTML5 is only in "draft" state, just as CSS2.1 and
    > CSS3 are.


    No it isn't. Not "just as".

    CSS 2.1 is a working draft that has remained fairly stable for several
    years, it is written in the form of a specification to the extent that W3C
    deliverables ever are, it is actively promoted by the W3C, and it is
    generally cited as the "de facto standard" for CSS (contrary to what it says
    about itself, at least nominally).

    CSS 3 is a collection of sketchy documents of very varying maturity and
    activity around them. They even contain loads of "what should we do about
    this?" statements, indicating that they are "working documents" much more
    than draft or proposed recommendations are.

    HTML5 is vague name for activities both at the W3C and at the WHATWG, and
    everyone has his own idea of what topics belong to HTML5 - some people even
    count CSS 3 as part of HTML5! The oxymoron "living standard", used by the
    WHATWG, is revealing: to them, HTML5 is whatever happens to be in the WHATWG
    document today.

    > HTML5 and is the latest defacto standard, just as CSS2.1
    > and CSS3 are.


    Do I need to repeat the explanation of why that characterization is utterly
    wrong?

    > They are all usable


    No doubt about that, though they should only be used by people who
    understand the implications and complications. Well, this applies to any
    technology, but still.

    > HTML5 is incomplete as far as the new elements
    > are concerned (specification and browser support).


    HTML5 is largely still just talk about what should be included. Of course,
    as the topic is technical, the talk needs to be technical and often rather
    detailed.

    > CSS 2.1 and CSS 3
    > also are not fully supported by all browsers.


    Neither is CSS 4. You cannot even _define_ support when there is no
    semi-stable draft for a semi-specification. It would be much more adequate
    to say that CSS 2.1 is reasonably well supported by newest versions of
    popular browsers when used in "standards" mode (but there are still
    essential problems, especially due to use of pre-IE8 versions of IE),
    whereas those parts of CSS 3 that have been reasonably well sketched-out and
    stablish have _some_ support (usually partial, excluding the difficult
    parts) in _some_ modern browsers.

    > The bonus is that you can also use the new elements
    > available in HTML5, in as much as they are supported by all browsers,


    Which means pretty much none. Well, <wbr> might be counted in, and <nobr>
    but oops, that one is "obsolete".

    The new elements you can use are those that require no special support, like
    <nav>, and those that can be reasonably well simulated in or taught to IE6
    through IE8. For example, if you wish to style a <nav>, you should say
    document.createElement("nav")
    in a script, called before the first CSS reference, to teach that element
    (just as an existing element, no features) to CSS. And if you wish to use
    <canvas>, well, you have some more things to do.

    > If you want to use some of the
    > new HTML5 elements, which it will support, just realize that some of
    > them are not yet supported by all browsers.


    Get real. Most of them are not supported by any browser or are supported by
    just one or two minority browser. There's still a lot in HTML5 that can be
    used even today, and there's a lot more to be learned and experimented for
    future use. But the situation is very different from that of HTML 4 - about
    _it_ you could say that some of its features are not yet supported by all
    browsers.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 21, 2011
    #9
  10. William Gill

    dorayme Guest

    In article <9Pn8p.13501$>,
    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > So, the strategy for clever but not reckless authors is to use
    > > CSS3 (at least the bits that are widely supported) but only where
    > > it degrades well if it does not work.

    >
    > I would say that the statement applies even if you omit the digit "3".


    If a visitor has CSS off, the result should be a usable page, not
    a dog's breakfast, agreed.

    I just meant that among the visitors who have CSS, a few dropped
    CSS3 styles might not take them all the way back to completely
    basic styling provided by browser (though, it is a wonder to
    behold how improved some sites are on doing just this).

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 21, 2011
    #10
  11. William Gill

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 2/21/2011 2:29 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Gus Richter wrote:
    >
    >> It is true that HTML5 is only in "draft" state, just as CSS2.1 and
    >> CSS3 are.

    >
    > No it isn't. Not "just as".
    >
    > CSS 2.1 is a working draft that has remained fairly stable for several
    > years, it is written in the form of a specification to the extent that
    > W3C deliverables ever are, it is actively promoted by the W3C, and it is
    > generally cited as the "de facto standard" for CSS (contrary to what it
    > says about itself, at least nominally).
    >
    > CSS 3 is a collection of sketchy documents of very varying maturity and
    > activity around them. They even contain loads of "what should we do
    > about this?" statements, indicating that they are "working documents"
    > much more than draft or proposed recommendations are.
    >
    > HTML5 is vague name for activities both at the W3C and at the WHATWG,
    > and everyone has his own idea of what topics belong to HTML5 - some
    > people even count CSS 3 as part of HTML5! The oxymoron "living
    > standard", used by the WHATWG, is revealing: to them, HTML5 is whatever
    > happens to be in the WHATWG document today.
    >
    >> HTML5 and is the latest defacto standard, just as CSS2.1
    >> and CSS3 are.

    >
    > Do I need to repeat the explanation of why that characterization is
    > utterly wrong?
    >
    >> They are all usable

    >
    > No doubt about that, though they should only be used by people who
    > understand the implications and complications. Well, this applies to any
    > technology, but still.
    >
    >> HTML5 is incomplete as far as the new elements
    >> are concerned (specification and browser support).

    >
    > HTML5 is largely still just talk about what should be included. Of
    > course, as the topic is technical, the talk needs to be technical and
    > often rather detailed.
    >
    >> CSS 2.1 and CSS 3
    >> also are not fully supported by all browsers.

    >
    > Neither is CSS 4. You cannot even _define_ support when there is no
    > semi-stable draft for a semi-specification. It would be much more
    > adequate to say that CSS 2.1 is reasonably well supported by newest
    > versions of popular browsers when used in "standards" mode (but there
    > are still essential problems, especially due to use of pre-IE8 versions
    > of IE), whereas those parts of CSS 3 that have been reasonably well
    > sketched-out and stablish have _some_ support (usually partial,
    > excluding the difficult parts) in _some_ modern browsers.
    >
    >> The bonus is that you can also use the new elements
    >> available in HTML5, in as much as they are supported by all browsers,

    >
    > Which means pretty much none. Well, <wbr> might be counted in, and
    > <nobr> but oops, that one is "obsolete".
    >
    > The new elements you can use are those that require no special support,
    > like <nav>, and those that can be reasonably well simulated in or taught
    > to IE6 through IE8. For example, if you wish to style a <nav>, you
    > should say
    > document.createElement("nav")
    > in a script, called before the first CSS reference, to teach that
    > element (just as an existing element, no features) to CSS. And if you
    > wish to use <canvas>, well, you have some more things to do.
    >
    >> If you want to use some of the
    >> new HTML5 elements, which it will support, just realize that some of
    >> them are not yet supported by all browsers.

    >
    > Get real. Most of them are not supported by any browser or are supported
    > by just one or two minority browser. There's still a lot in HTML5 that
    > can be used even today, and there's a lot more to be learned and
    > experimented for future use. But the situation is very different from
    > that of HTML 4 - about _it_ you could say that some of its features are
    > not yet supported by all browsers.



    I'm reminded of all the criticism and naysayers when CSS was
    recommended. Perhaps we could agree on this:

    1. All new documents should be created to place browsers into Standards
    Mode. If preferring HTML 4.01, use the Strict Doctype.

    2. The HTML5 Doctype is a minimized HTML 4.01 Strict Doctype to the
    point whereby all doctype sniffing browsers will still trigger Standards
    Mode. Use <!DOCTYPE html> as the Doctype with only HTML 4.01 vintage
    elements and you achieve the same result as 1. above.

    3. When using the HTML5 Doctype you are not obligated to use the new
    elements, but you could, when you and/or the browser(s) are ready.

    4. The WHATWG initiated the HTML5 project and was founded by Apple,
    Mozilla and Opera. Google and Microsoft are also on side. They are
    working on supporting HTML5. It's a transition period similar to when
    CSS was introduced. It took a while for browsers to support the CSS
    Properties and for developers to start using them. I recall a lot of
    doom and gloom predictions in those days.

    --
    Gus
    Gus Richter, Feb 21, 2011
    #11
  12. William Gill

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Feb 21, 4:06 am, Gus Richter <> wrote:
    > On 2/21/2011 2:29 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Gus Richter wrote:

    >
    > >> It is true that HTML5 is only in "draft" state, just as CSS2.1 and
    > >> CSS3 are.

    >
    > > No it isn't. Not "just as".

    >
    > > CSS 2.1 is a working draft that has remained fairly stable for several
    > > years, it is written in the form of a specification to the extent that
    > > W3C deliverables ever are, it is actively promoted by the W3C, and it is
    > > generally cited as the "de facto standard" for CSS (contrary to what it
    > > says about itself, at least nominally).

    >
    > > CSS 3 is a collection of sketchy documents of very varying maturity and
    > > activity around them. They even contain loads of "what should we do
    > > about this?" statements, indicating that they are "working documents"
    > > much more than draft or proposed recommendations are.

    >
    > > HTML5 is vague name for activities both at the W3C and at the WHATWG,
    > > and everyone has his own idea of what topics belong to HTML5 - some
    > > people even count CSS 3 as part of HTML5! The oxymoron "living
    > > standard", used by the WHATWG, is revealing: to them, HTML5 is whatever
    > > happens to be in the WHATWG document today.

    >
    > >> HTML5 and is the latest defacto standard, just as CSS2.1
    > >> and CSS3 are.

    >
    > > Do I need to repeat the explanation of why that characterization is
    > > utterly wrong?

    >
    > >> They are all usable

    >
    > > No doubt about that, though they should only be used by people who
    > > understand the implications and complications. Well, this applies to any
    > > technology, but still.

    >
    > >> HTML5 is incomplete as far as the new elements
    > >> are concerned (specification and browser support).

    >
    > > HTML5 is largely still just talk about what should be included. Of
    > > course, as the topic is technical, the talk needs to be technical and
    > > often rather detailed.

    >
    > >> CSS 2.1 and CSS 3
    > >> also are not fully supported by all browsers.

    >
    > > Neither is CSS 4. You cannot even _define_ support when there is no
    > > semi-stable draft for a semi-specification. It would be much more
    > > adequate to say that CSS 2.1 is reasonably well supported by newest
    > > versions of popular browsers when used in "standards" mode (but there
    > > are still essential problems, especially due to use of pre-IE8 versions
    > > of IE), whereas those parts of CSS 3 that have been reasonably well
    > > sketched-out and stablish have _some_ support (usually partial,
    > > excluding the difficult parts) in _some_ modern browsers.

    >
    > >> The bonus is that you can also use the new elements
    > >> available in HTML5, in as much as they are supported by all browsers,

    >
    > > Which means pretty much none. Well, <wbr> might be counted in, and
    > > <nobr> but oops, that one is "obsolete".

    >
    > > The new elements you can use are those that require no special support,
    > > like <nav>, and those that can be reasonably well simulated in or taught
    > > to IE6 through IE8. For example, if you wish to style a <nav>, you
    > > should say
    > > document.createElement("nav")
    > > in a script, called before the first CSS reference, to teach that
    > > element (just as an existing element, no features) to CSS. And if you
    > > wish to use <canvas>, well, you have some more things to do.

    >
    > >> If you want to use some of the
    > >> new HTML5 elements, which it will support, just realize that some of
    > >> them are not yet supported by all browsers.

    >
    > > Get real. Most of them are not supported by any browser or are supported
    > > by just one or two minority browser. There's still a lot in HTML5 that
    > > can be used even today, and there's a lot more to be learned and
    > > experimented for future use. But the situation is very different from
    > > that of HTML 4 - about _it_ you could say that some of its features are
    > > not yet supported by all browsers.

    >
    > I'm reminded of all the criticism and naysayers when CSS was
    > recommended. Perhaps we could agree on this:
    >
    > 1. All new documents should be created to place browsers into Standards
    > Mode. If preferring HTML 4.01, use the Strict Doctype.
    >
    > 2. The HTML5 Doctype is a minimized HTML 4.01 Strict Doctype to the
    > point whereby all doctype sniffing browsers will still trigger Standards
    > Mode. Use  <!DOCTYPE html>  as the Doctype with only HTML 4.01 vintage
    > elements and you achieve the same result as 1. above.
    >
    > 3. When using the HTML5 Doctype you are not obligated to use the new
    > elements, but you could, when you and/or the browser(s) are ready.
    >
    > 4. The WHATWG initiated the HTML5 project and was founded by Apple,
    > Mozilla and Opera. Google and Microsoft are also on side. They are
    > working on supporting HTML5. It's a transition period similar to when
    > CSS was introduced. It took a while for browsers to support the CSS
    > Properties and for developers to start using them. I recall a lot of
    > doom and gloom predictions in those days.


    Microsoft, as of Feb. 10, has moved IE9-beta up to to a Release
    Candidate which is now available for download at Microsoft.(Is a
    release candidate a purgatory between a beta and plain release? :).
    IE9 is greatly different from earlier versions. Even if you hate IE,
    most of us who write web pages need to know what it will do with our
    pages. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705.aspx to see
    what IE9 will do. Concerning html5, IE9 supports far more html5
    specific code than IE8. Also there is much more css 3 support. A
    problem with Javascrapt I was having on IE9 beta, but not on earlier
    versions of IE, has cleared up in the release candidate. A few bugs I
    have noted on previous posts remain. Besides supporting application/
    xhtml+xml, the next surprise I noticed most is that IE9 is using a
    html5 "house" video element format of mp4 type called AVC with codec
    H264 and uses aac audio for the sound. I was expecting .wmv instead.
    It is very interesting to note that the most recent flv/swf also uses
    codec H264 and is capable of even top Blu-ray resolution, although the
    usual mp3 sound needs to be upgraded for HD. In the past there were
    rumors that Microsoft and Adobe might combine, but most did not think
    this would happen because of antitrust laws. However, these rumors are
    now alive again. Several weeks ago, the CEOs of Adobe and Microsoft
    had a meeting, which many thought might concern the media problem
    posed by Apple, Google, and others. Since Google, Apple, and several
    others are much more important now than in the past, antitrust laws
    might not now prevent an Adobe-Microsoft merger. It appears it would
    be very easy to merge the new Microsoft H264 codec video support with
    that of the latest Adobe flv/swf support. It also is interesting that
    recent camcorders from the likes of Sony support a codec H264 format
    in HD such as AVCHD with mp4 container files. Of course the importance
    of the movie companies, including Sony, is very great, since many
    computer companies want to stream or sell audio or video. A major
    movie company likely could require that the CEOs of Microsoft and
    Adobe dance a tango together, if that is what it took to get access to
    their movies and audio :).
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 21, 2011
    #12
  13. William Gill

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 2/21/2011 5:09 PM, cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > Microsoft, as of Feb. 10, has moved IE9-beta up to to a Release
    > Candidate which is now available for download at Microsoft.(Is a
    > release candidate a purgatory between a beta and plain release? :).
    > IE9 is greatly different from earlier versions. Even if you hate IE,
    > most of us who write web pages need to know what it will do with our
    > pages. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705.aspx to see
    > what IE9 will do. Concerning html5, IE9 supports far more html5
    > specific code than IE8. Also there is much more css 3 support. A
    > problem with Javascrapt I was having on IE9 beta, but not on earlier
    > versions of IE, has cleared up in the release candidate. A few bugs I
    > have noted on previous posts remain. Besides supporting application/
    > xhtml+xml, the next surprise I noticed most is that IE9 is using a
    > html5 "house" video element format of mp4 type called AVC with codec
    > H264 and uses aac audio for the sound. I was expecting .wmv instead.
    > It is very interesting to note that the most recent flv/swf also uses
    > codec H264 and is capable of even top Blu-ray resolution, although the
    > usual mp3 sound needs to be upgraded for HD. In the past there were
    > rumors that Microsoft and Adobe might combine, but most did not think
    > this would happen because of antitrust laws. However, these rumors are
    > now alive again. Several weeks ago, the CEOs of Adobe and Microsoft
    > had a meeting, which many thought might concern the media problem
    > posed by Apple, Google, and others. Since Google, Apple, and several
    > others are much more important now than in the past, antitrust laws
    > might not now prevent an Adobe-Microsoft merger. It appears it would
    > be very easy to merge the new Microsoft H264 codec video support with
    > that of the latest Adobe flv/swf support. It also is interesting that
    > recent camcorders from the likes of Sony support a codec H264 format
    > in HD such as AVCHD with mp4 container files. Of course the importance
    > of the movie companies, including Sony, is very great, since many
    > computer companies want to stream or sell audio or video. A major
    > movie company likely could require that the CEOs of Microsoft and
    > Adobe dance a tango together, if that is what it took to get access to
    > their movies and audio :).



    Thank you for the info and the link.

    --
    Gus
    Gus Richter, Feb 22, 2011
    #13
  14. William Gill

    Lewis Guest

    In message <ijtdf0$kni$-september.org>
    Gus Richter <> wrote:
    > 1. All new documents should be created to place browsers into Standards
    > Mode. If preferring HTML 4.01, use the Strict Doctype.


    Absolutely.

    > 2. The HTML5 Doctype is a minimized HTML 4.01 Strict Doctype to the
    > point whereby all doctype sniffing browsers will still trigger Standards
    > Mode. Use <!DOCTYPE html> as the Doctype with only HTML 4.01 vintage
    > elements and you achieve the same result as 1. above.


    Yep.

    > 3. When using the HTML5 Doctype you are not obligated to use the new
    > elements, but you could, when you and/or the browser(s) are ready.


    Yep. But also, you should use the appropriate checks to see if a feature
    in HTML5 you want to use is supported, and if not, degrade gracefully.

    > 4. The WHATWG initiated the HTML5 project and was founded by Apple,
    > Mozilla and Opera. Google and Microsoft are also on side. They are
    > working on supporting HTML5. It's a transition period similar to when
    > CSS was introduced. It took a while for browsers to support the CSS
    > Properties and for developers to start using them. I recall a lot of
    > doom and gloom predictions in those days.


    The trouble is that so far, at least, Microsoft is not doing it right
    and is still doing its own thing and picking and choosing what to
    support and how. Maybe IE9 is better than 7 or 8? Hard to say yet, but
    they've done atrociously on the Acid tests in the past. Hell, do they
    even support fixed position correctly yet?

    --
    A Clean House Is A Sign Of A Misspent Life
    Lewis, Feb 22, 2011
    #14
  15. Gus Richter wrote:

    > I'm reminded of all the criticism and naysayers when CSS was
    > recommended.


    I still remember the time when Internet Explorer 3 had the best available
    CSS implementation. A bit later it was said that the best part of CSS
    support in IE 3 was that it was easy to switch it off - something that later
    versions of IE left off for no good reason.

    So at least at some point, there were good reasons for the criticism.

    > Perhaps we could agree on this:


    Well, I guess so, with annotations.

    > 2. The HTML5 Doctype is a minimized HTML 4.01 Strict Doctype to the
    > point whereby all doctype sniffing browsers will still trigger
    > Standards Mode.


    Rather, it's a special kind of incantation constructed for the purpose of
    triggering "Standards Mode" (which isn't really standards-conforming mode,
    just each browser's best attempt at that, or not-intentionally-buggy mode).
    HTM5 has no concept of document type definition, so its "doctype" is just an
    imitation of document type declarations. It has no special relation to HTML
    4.01 Strict doctype.

    > Use <!DOCTYPE html> as the Doctype with only HTML
    > 4.01 vintage elements and you achieve the same result as 1. above.


    As far as rendering goes, yes. But if you use the W3C markup checker,
    somewhat confusingly called W3C Markup Validator, <!DOCTYPE html> has a very
    special effect. Instead of running SGML or XML validation, the checker runs
    a completely different type of check. In particular, it will accept some
    HTML 4.01 constructs that are invalid under HTML 4.01 Strict (like <menu>)
    and reject as errors some constructs that are valid under HTML 4.01 Strict
    (like <big>).

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 22, 2011
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Jones

    html5 vs xhtml2

    Robert Jones, Dec 2, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    824
    Bergamot
    Dec 14, 2007
  2. n0ctis

    HTML5 vs. XHTML

    n0ctis, Aug 15, 2008, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,278
    SpaceGirl
    Aug 18, 2008
  3. Ganesh

    HTML5

    Ganesh, Aug 30, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    3,092
    Ganesh
    Sep 23, 2009
  4. pranay

    HTML5 and HTTP

    pranay, Oct 18, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    499
  5. Adrienne Boswell

    Re: HTML5 Forms Question

    Adrienne Boswell, Jun 17, 2010, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    885
    BootNic
    Jun 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page