The horror of HTML5

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Tim W, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. Tim W

    Tim W Guest

    This probably isn't news to you lot but I am a beginner in this html
    lark and I am teaching myself a bit of what I thought would be the
    latest and slickest HTML5 but the more I learn the more I recoil in
    horror at the mess that it is. Look at this site. I have no idea who
    this guy is but clearly not an idiot - he has written a book about HTML5
    and I thought I might read what he has to say:
    http://diveintohtml5.info/index.html

    But what do we find on the index page? Nice embedded font, but the
    attempt (Ithink)at a drop cap reads "[blob]ive into HTML5...." in FF so
    we open it in Opera and it's just a slightly different blob and now I
    look at it the other browser is displaying half the text (not all)in a
    different size. Sheesh, what a mess up and this is from an expert. What
    hope for someone like me?

    Tim w

    Here is a screenshot of what I saw:
    http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af79/Timbowps/html5screen.jpg
     
    Tim W, Jun 11, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 11/06/2012 10:53, Tim W wrote:
    > This probably isn't news to you lot but I am a beginner in this html
    > lark and I am teaching myself a bit of what I thought would be the
    > latest and slickest HTML5 but the more I learn the more I recoil in
    > horror at the mess that it is. Look at this site. I have no idea who
    > this guy is but clearly not an idiot - he has written a book about HTML5
    > and I thought I might read what he has to say:
    > http://diveintohtml5.info/index.html
    >
    > But what do we find on the index page? Nice embedded font, but the
    > attempt (Ithink)at a drop cap reads "[blob]ive into HTML5...." in FF so
    > we open it in Opera and it's just a slightly different blob and now I
    > look at it the other browser is displaying half the text (not all)in a
    > different size. Sheesh, what a mess up and this is from an expert. What
    > hope for someone like me?


    Long story short, you will like HTML5 way better if you stay with what
    it does offer, rather than try to make things you want but it does not
    offer.

    Yeah, it is indeed frustratring on many accounts and there are many
    reasons for it. If you want to make a website you will need to make do
    with how you make a website. Otherwise, one can always develop native apps.

    Also, presentational features are best kept with CSS realms and out of
    HTML. That was the case here. No HTML5 at all for these drop caps.

    --
    Mayeul
     
    mayeul.marguet, Jun 11, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > "These are the properties that apply to :first-letter pseudo-elements:
    > font properties, 'text-decoration', 'text-transform', 'letter-spacing',
    > 'word-spacing' (when appropriate), 'line-height', 'float',
    > 'vertical-align' (only if 'float' is 'none'), margin properties, padding
    > properties, border properties, color property, background properties.
    > UAs may apply other properties as well."
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/selector.html#first-letter
    >
    > So you shouldn't expect to be able to set the dimensions using width and
    > height. Consequently, most browsers these days will use some small box
    > for the element. What we see users is just the tiny part of the
    > background image that was supposed to be shown as large.



    Adding "border: 1px solid #f00;" to .f:first-letter will confirm it. A
    hack that will approximate what the author was hoping for is to for that
    rule (.f:first-letter) remove:

    "width: 6em;" and "height: em;" and add "padding: 100px;" and
    "background-repeat" no-repeat;". The results will no longer scalable
    with the base font.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 11, 2012
    #3
  4. Tim W

    P E Schoen Guest

    P E Schoen, Jun 12, 2012
    #4
  5. Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 12, 2012
    #5
  6. Tim W

    Tim W Guest

    On 11/06/2012 12:09, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > 2012-06-11 11:53, Tim W wrote:
    >
    >> Look at this site. I have no idea who
    >> this guy is but clearly not an idiot - he has written a book about HTML5
    >> and I thought I might read what he has to say:
    >> http://diveintohtml5.info/index.html
    >>
    >> But what do we find on the index page? Nice embedded font, but the
    >> attempt (Ithink)at a drop cap reads "[blob]ive into HTML5...." in FF so
    >> we open it in Opera and it's just a slightly different blob

    >
    > Embedded fonts are CSS3, not HTML5.


    Yes you made that distinction before I think, and technically correct,
    no question but to my ear 'html' is common parlance whereas 'CSS' is a
    technical term so to say for instance 'html is the language that
    websites are written in' is totally acceptable. iow 'html' can mean al
    ot of other stuff as well as html.
    > And the style sheet settings for creating a drop cap aren't even CSS3
    > but CSS 2.1. Whoever wrote the page made a mistake in trying to turn
    > the first letter to a drop cap, using :first-letter, failing to note
    > this restriction:
    >
    > "These are the properties that apply to :first-letter pseudo-elements:
    > font properties, 'text-decoration', 'text-transform',
    > 'letter-spacing', 'word-spacing' (when appropriate), 'line-height',
    > 'float', 'vertical-align' (only if 'float' is 'none'), margin
    > properties, padding properties, border properties, color property,
    > background properties. UAs may apply other properties as well."
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/selector.html#first-letter
    >
    > So you shouldn't expect to be able to set the dimensions using width
    > and height. Consequently, most browsers these days will use some small
    > box for the element. What we see users is just the tiny part of the
    > background image that was supposed to be shown as large.
    >
    > This does not tell anything about the author's competence in HTML5
    > matters, or about HTML5.


    Right
     
    Tim W, Jun 12, 2012
    #6
  7. Tim W

    Tim W Guest

    On 12/06/2012 07:52, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > 2012-06-12 8:28, P E Schoen wrote:
    >
    >> My screenshot using IE9:
    >>
    >> http://www.enginuitysystems.com/pix/HTML5.jpg

    >
    > The page http://diveintohtml5.info/index.html has been modified now (I
    > informed its maintainer about the problem). It now has the letter "D"
    > marked up and styled as a separate real element, instead of using the
    > :first-letter pseudo-element. This is a little clumsier, but it avoids
    > the limitations on styling the pseudo-element.
    >

    I am still getting different font sizes in the paras with different
    browsers. Is that a result of stying with words , font-size:large; in
    the CSS?

    Tim W
     
    Tim W, Jun 12, 2012
    #7
  8. On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:50:15 +0100, Tim W <>
    wrote:

    >On 11/06/2012 12:09, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:


    [snip]

    >> Embedded fonts are CSS3, not HTML5.

    >
    >Yes you made that distinction before I think, and technically correct,
    >no question but to my ear 'html' is common parlance whereas 'CSS' is a
    >technical term so to say for instance 'html is the language that
    >websites are written in' is totally acceptable. iow 'html' can mean al
    >ot of other stuff as well as html.


    This is a technical newsgroup for HTML. It should not be
    surprising that we tend to use the technical definition of "HTML"
    here.

    [snip]

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jun 12, 2012
    #8
  9. Tim W

    dorayme Guest

    In article <jr8a6h$5uj$>,
    Tim W <> wrote:

    > I am still getting different font sizes in the paras with different
    > browsers. Is that a result of stying with words , font-size:large; in
    > the CSS?


    Have a look at your browser settings (options or preferences) and see
    if they differ. There are differences between browsers independent of
    this but start with this.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 12, 2012
    #9
  10. Tim W

    Neil Gould Guest

    Tim W wrote:
    >
    > Yes you made that distinction before I think, and technically correct,
    > no question but to my ear 'html' is common parlance whereas 'CSS' is a
    > technical term so to say for instance 'html is the language that
    > websites are written in' is totally acceptable. iow 'html' can mean al
    > ot of other stuff as well as html.
    >

    Right. Around here, it could mean "How's The Meat Loaf"? ;-^

    --
    best regards,

    Neil
     
    Neil Gould, Jun 13, 2012
    #10
  11. On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:20:05 -0400, "Neil Gould"
    <> wrote:

    >Tim W wrote:
    >>
    >> Yes you made that distinction before I think, and technically correct,
    >> no question but to my ear 'html' is common parlance whereas 'CSS' is a
    >> technical term so to say for instance 'html is the language that
    >> websites are written in' is totally acceptable. iow 'html' can mean al
    >> ot of other stuff as well as html.
    >>

    >Right. Around here, it could mean "How's The Meat Loaf"? ;-^


    When I was in discussions against HTML in E-mail, my expansion
    was "Has Too Many Lines".

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jun 13, 2012
    #11
  12. font-size: large

    2012-06-12 23:52, Tim W wrote under
    Re: The horror of HTML5:

    > I am still getting different font sizes in the paras with different
    > browsers. Is that a result of stying with words , font-size:large; in
    > the CSS?


    Yes, you should very much expect different browsers to use different
    font sizes when font-size: large is used:

    "An <absolute-size> keyword is an index to a table of font sizes
    computed and kept by the UA. Possible values are:

    [ xx-small | x-small | small | medium | large | x-large | xx-large ]"

    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/fonts.html#font-size-props

    So their being "absolute" is very relative. (UA = user agent = browser)

    In an ideal world, such "absolute" values would work well, since we
    could expect browsers, controlled by users, to know better than authors
    what is the suitable size for large text.

    In this sublunar world into which we have been thrown, they are a mess.
    Look what the CSS 2.1 spec adds in a note: "In CSS1, the suggested
    scaling factor between adjacent indexes was 1.5, which user experience
    proved to be too large. In CSS2, the suggested scaling factor for a
    computer screen between adjacent indexes was 1.2, which still created
    issues for the small sizes. Implementation experience has demonstrated
    that a fixed ratio between adjacent absolute-size keywords is
    problematic, and this specification does not recommend such a fixed ratio."

    As if this were not messy enough, the CSS3 Fonts working draft suggests
    a "guideline" for scaling factors:

    3/5 3/4 8/9 1 6/5 3/2 2/1

    http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-fonts/#font-size-prop

    Here 6/5 is what they "suggest" for large, and it happens to coincide
    with the previously "suggested" fixed ratio of 1.2. But there's no
    guarantee that browsers actually behave that way, and you have no legal
    case against a browser that decides that large is 42 times as large as
    normal, or 1.001 or 1 times as large. I'm afraid the "standards" have
    been written so that you might not even have a legal case against a
    browser that uses a factor of 0.001.

    So why go into this obscurity instead of simply setting a factor that is
    reasonable in your context, like font-size: 115% or, if you happen to
    agree with the "suggestion", 120%?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 13, 2012
    #12
  13. Tim W

    Tim W Guest

    On 13/06/2012 02:20, Neil Gould wrote:
    > Tim W wrote:
    >> Yes you made that distinction before I think, and technically correct,
    >> no question but to my ear 'html' is common parlance whereas 'CSS' is a
    >> technical term so to say for instance 'html is the language that
    >> websites are written in' is totally acceptable. iow 'html' can mean al
    >> ot of other stuff as well as html.
    >>

    > Right. Around here, it could mean "How's The Meat Loaf"? ;-^
    >

    What was it that Humpty Dumpty said about words?

    Tim W
     
    Tim W, Jun 13, 2012
    #13
  14. Tim W

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 6/11/2012 4:53 AM, Tim W wrote:
    > Look at this site. I have no idea who this guy is but clearly not an
    > idiot - he has written a book about HTML5 and I thought I might read
    > what he has to say: http://diveintohtml5.info/index.html


    "Dive Into HTML5" by Mark Pilgrim
    <http://www.diveintohtml5.org/peeks-pokes-and-pointers.html> was a very
    popular web site/page/document. It then all of a sudden went off the
    air. Mark Pilgrim no longer maintains the site, but due to its
    popularity it was retrieved from archives, maintained, updated and
    rebroadcasted by html5doctor.com/ as:

    <http://diveinto.html5doctor.com/>

    You will note the difference in the opening page from that of the link
    provided in this thread. If you read the first page completely you will
    note the various other archives also available.

    The document is also updated to reflect changes since the original
    document was authored.

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Jun 13, 2012
    #14
    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. Ariel Gimenez

    Horror

    Ariel Gimenez, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    666
    Ariel Gimenez
    Aug 7, 2004
  2. Adrienne

    OT- Inherited Site Horror Story

    Adrienne, Jul 27, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    420
    Leonard Blaisdell
    Jul 30, 2005
  3. Rui Maciel
    Replies:
    67
    Views:
    2,109
    Christopher Layne
    Feb 16, 2007
  4. Stephan Kuhagen
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    574
    Stephan Kuhagen
    Nov 30, 2006
  5. Matt Lawrence

    Oh, The Horror!

    Matt Lawrence, Jan 26, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    95
    tony summerfelt
    Jan 27, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page