Re: [whatwg] IPv4 parsing
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Ryan Sleevi sle...@google.com wrote: [...] All the forms except for decimal octets are seen as non-standard (despite being quite widely interoperable) and undesirable. They are no longer non-standard, though still non-conforming. Or, in other words, https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ has an IPv4 parser now. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element
I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website title/logo/branding as shown in-page. I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside head, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site you're not familiar with via search results, a link, etc. You skip to the content as that's what you're interested in, but you like the content and want to find out the name of the website. To my knowledge, there's no go-to place for that information. It might be part of the title or an h1, but both of those elements relate more to the page than the larger site. To me it'd make sense to define such an element as a companion to title. Many authors currently lump the website name and the page title together in an arbitrary format inside title. Having a separate element for the website name would serve to discourage that, and would let user agents present the two pieces of information in a consistent and predictable way. Regards, Pontus On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 12:46 Delfi Ramirez del...@segonquart.net wrote: logo sounds nice to me. As far as we move onto standarized browsers and mobile devices as the way we connect to the web, the proposed logo could be equal to the reference or representation shown in _svg=icon _or_ link-rel=ico_ Just thinking. --- Delfi Ramirez My digital signature [1] +34 633 589231 del...@segonquart.net [2] twitter: delfinramirez IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3] http://segonquart.net [4] http://delfiramirez.info [5] On 2015-06-30 11:48, Martin Janecke wrote: On 30.06.15 03:18, Garrett Smith wrote: On 6/29/15, Barry Smith bearzt...@live.com wrote: From: Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com Hey Garrett, My apologizes for not replying until now. When I posted my reply to the Site-Wide Heading Element thread, you were right and I should have posted a more complete example. Here is what I should have given as an example: header id=banner script src=scripts/header.js type=text/javascript/script noscript div class=styledText div class=letterMM/div div class=wordy/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterWW/div div class=wordeb/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterSS/div div class=wordite/div /div /noscript /header Using the div element for purely stylistic purposes. Placing them within the noscript element displays the exact same header as is in the embedded script element, but without the additional animation used in the javascript file. I would use an H1 with text-transform : capitalize and avoid using divs and javascript. I agree with avoiding JavaScript. I am not sure about text-transform, because I don't know which styling the author had in mind. He may want to color every word's first letter differently. div is actually a neutral block element. The neutral inline element span would seem like the better choice to wrap letters or single words in the example. But you could wrap the whole line into one div. I would not use h1 because My Website is neither a heading for the content of the page (unless maybe on the front page or a sitemap) nor for a section of the page. It could be intended as a title for the whole website, i.e. all its pages together, or as some kind of logo or branding. I don't think we have a dedicated element for either of these interpretations. Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning title for the entirety of pages of a website. How would this be interpreted, if such an element is used with different content on different pages of the same website? I think such an element would cause inconsistencies all the time. It isn't a good idea. Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning logo, branding. What would its benefits be compared to div? And would authors still want to use it if add-blockers get a little more aggressive and offer the option to block logos? Martin Links: -- [1] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc [2] mail:%20del...@segonquart.net [3] skype:segonquart [4] http://segonquart.net [5] http://delfiramirez.info
Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element
I agree that the title/banner/logo element doesn't add much value. I don't feel like a tag to canonically declare the website name would add much value either - isn't that what the domain is for? Also the tag wouldn't be very trustworthy - the domain is less easy to lie about. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Pontus Horn af Rantzien pontus.h...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website title/logo/branding as shown in-page. I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside head, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site you're not familiar with via search results, a link, etc. You skip to the content as that's what you're interested in, but you like the content and want to find out the name of the website. To my knowledge, there's no go-to place for that information. It might be part of the title or an h1, but both of those elements relate more to the page than the larger site. To me it'd make sense to define such an element as a companion to title. Many authors currently lump the website name and the page title together in an arbitrary format inside title. Having a separate element for the website name would serve to discourage that, and would let user agents present the two pieces of information in a consistent and predictable way. Regards, Pontus On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 12:46 Delfi Ramirez del...@segonquart.net wrote: logo sounds nice to me. As far as we move onto standarized browsers and mobile devices as the way we connect to the web, the proposed logo could be equal to the reference or representation shown in _svg=icon _or_ link-rel=ico_ Just thinking. --- Delfi Ramirez My digital signature [1] +34 633 589231 del...@segonquart.net [2] twitter: delfinramirez IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3] http://segonquart.net [4] http://delfiramirez.info [5] On 2015-06-30 11:48, Martin Janecke wrote: On 30.06.15 03:18, Garrett Smith wrote: On 6/29/15, Barry Smith bearzt...@live.com wrote: From: Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com Hey Garrett, My apologizes for not replying until now. When I posted my reply to the Site-Wide Heading Element thread, you were right and I should have posted a more complete example. Here is what I should have given as an example: header id=banner script src=scripts/header.js type=text/javascript/script noscript div class=styledText div class=letterMM/div div class=wordy/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterWW/div div class=wordeb/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterSS/div div class=wordite/div /div /noscript /header Using the div element for purely stylistic purposes. Placing them within the noscript element displays the exact same header as is in the embedded script element, but without the additional animation used in the javascript file. I would use an H1 with text-transform : capitalize and avoid using divs and javascript. I agree with avoiding JavaScript. I am not sure about text-transform, because I don't know which styling the author had in mind. He may want to color every word's first letter differently. div is actually a neutral block element. The neutral inline element span would seem like the better choice to wrap letters or single words in the example. But you could wrap the whole line into one div. I would not use h1 because My Website is neither a heading for the content of the page (unless maybe on the front page or a sitemap) nor for a section of the page. It could be intended as a title for the whole website, i.e. all its pages together, or as some kind of logo or branding. I don't think we have a dedicated element for either of these interpretations. Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning title for the entirety of pages of a website. How would this be interpreted, if such an element is used with different content on different pages of the same website? I think such an element would cause inconsistencies all the time. It isn't a good idea. Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning logo, branding. What would its benefits be compared to div? And would authors still want to use it if add-blockers get a little more aggressive and offer the option to block logos? Martin Links: -- [1] http://delfiramirez.info/public/dr_public_key.asc [2] mail:%20del...@segonquart.net [3] skype:segonquart [4] http://segonquart.net [5] http://delfiramirez.info On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Pontus Horn af Rantzien pontus.h...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website title/logo/branding as shown in-page. I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside head, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site you're not familiar with via
Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element
Hi all: There was mentioned logo as a descendant element of the sectioning header element, just as an idea to solve the needs of the unacurate use of the header element it seems it occurs in our daily use, with the current spec. I could imagine other semantic elements,as long as e undertand the new uses population make of websites and the web. A logo element seems reasonable to me, both in a semantical and in a structural mode. Imagine: * Representing the page in other pages or directories ( through an API that crawls, search and makes an scrutiny of the pages, brands and its referenced logos ) . Solves the exposed in nightly spec, mentioned in my last mail. * logo As a possible linked reference or representation for new gTLDs. * Linked Correspondence between the logo and the icon an app has , or a bookmark visualizes, in a mobile scenario. Think of weareables connected to web pages. * A element acting as a reference for an object, that takes the weight offto other header elements descendants like img and h1, which, in my consideration are heavily misused, due to old practices. Stop my verbosity. Thank you for taking time in reading these notes. Cheers --- Delfi Ramirez My digital signature [3] +34 633 589231 del...@segonquart.net [4] twitter: delfinramirez IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [5] http://segonquart.net [1] http://delfiramirez.info [2] On 2015-07-01 22:24, Pontus Horn af Rantzien wrote: I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website title/logo/branding as shown in-page. I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside head, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site you're not familiar with via search results, a link, etc. You skip to the content as that's what you're interested in, but you like the content and want to find out the name of the website. To my knowledge, there's no go-to place for that information. It might be part of the title or an h1, but both of those elements relate more to the page than the larger site. To me it'd make sense to define such an element as a companion to title. Many authors currently lump the website name and the page title together in an arbitrary format inside title. Having a separate element for the website name would serve to discourage that, and would let user agents present the two pieces of information in a consistent and predictable way. Regards, Pontus On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 12:46 Delfi Ramirez del...@segonquart.net wrote: logo sounds nice to me. As far as we move onto standarized browsers and mobile devices as the way we connect to the web, the proposed logo could be equal to the reference or representation shown in _svg=icon _or_ link-rel=ico_ Just thinking. --- Delfi Ramirez My digital signature [1] +34 633 589231 del...@segonquart.net [2] twitter: delfinramirez IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3] http://segonquart.net [1] [4] http://delfiramirez.info [2] [5] On 2015-06-30 11:48, Martin Janecke wrote: On 30.06.15 03:18, Garrett Smith wrote: On 6/29/15, Barry Smith bearzt...@live.com wrote: From: Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com Hey Garrett, My apologizes for not replying until now. When I posted my reply to the Site-Wide Heading Element thread, you were right and I should have posted a more complete example. Here is what I should have given as an example: header id=banner script src=scripts/header.js type=text/javascript/script noscript div class=styledText div class=letterMM/div div class=wordy/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterWW/div div class=wordeb/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterSS/div div class=wordite/div /div /noscript /header Using the div element for purely stylistic purposes. Placing them within the noscript element displays the exact same header as is in the embedded script element, but without the additional animation used in the javascript file. I would use an H1 with text-transfo rm : capitalize and avoid using divs and javascript. I agree with avoiding JavaScript. I am not sure about text-transform, because I don't know which styling the author had in mind. He may want to color every word's first letter differently. div is actually a neutral block element. The neutral inline element span would seem like the better choice to wrap letters or single words in the example. But you could wrap the whole line into one div. I would not use h1 because My Website is neither a heading for the content of the page (unless maybe on the front page or a sitemap) nor for a section of the page. It could be intended as a title for the whole website, i.e. all its pages together, or as some kind of logo or branding. I don't think we have a dedicated element for either of these interpretations. Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning
Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element
The domain does not necessarily correspond to or have any relation to the website name. Furthermore, the domain is not necessarily readable language - how does a screen reader know how to pronounce alistapart.com? It could just as well read Ali's Tap Art. You're right that it could have some security implications if presented as trustworthy, but I'd argue there are ways to hinder that as long as it's taken into account in specification. Pontus On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 at 22:31 Jonathan Zuckerman j.zucker...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that the title/banner/logo element doesn't add much value. I don't feel like a tag to canonically declare the website name would add much value either - isn't that what the domain is for? Also the tag wouldn't be very trustworthy - the domain is less easy to lie about. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Pontus Horn af Rantzien pontus.h...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website title/logo/branding as shown in-page. I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside head, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site you're not familiar with via search results, a link, etc. You skip to the content as that's what you're interested in, but you like the content and want to find out the name of the website. To my knowledge, there's no go-to place for that information. It might be part of the title or an h1, but both of those elements relate more to the page than the larger site. To me it'd make sense to define such an element as a companion to title. Many authors currently lump the website name and the page title together in an arbitrary format inside title. Having a separate element for the website name would serve to discourage that, and would let user agents present the two pieces of information in a consistent and predictable way. Regards, Pontus On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 12:46 Delfi Ramirez del...@segonquart.net wrote: logo sounds nice to me. As far as we move onto standarized browsers and mobile devices as the way we connect to the web, the proposed logo could be equal to the reference or representation shown in _svg=icon _or_ link-rel=ico_ Just thinking. --- Delfi Ramirez My digital signature [1] +34 633 589231 del...@segonquart.net [2] twitter: delfinramirez IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3] http://segonquart.net [4] http://delfiramirez.info [5] On 2015-06-30 11:48, Martin Janecke wrote: On 30.06.15 03:18, Garrett Smith wrote: On 6/29/15, Barry Smith bearzt...@live.com wrote: From: Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com Hey Garrett, My apologizes for not replying until now. When I posted my reply to the Site-Wide Heading Element thread, you were right and I should have posted a more complete example. Here is what I should have given as an example: header id=banner script src=scripts/header.js type=text/javascript/script noscript div class=styledText div class=letterMM/div div class=wordy/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterWW/div div class=wordeb/div /div div class=styledText div class=letterSS/div div class=wordite/div /div /noscript /header Using the div element for purely stylistic purposes. Placing them within the noscript element displays the exact same header as is in the embedded script element, but without the additional animation used in the javascript file. I would use an H1 with text-transform : capitalize and avoid using divs and javascript. I agree with avoiding JavaScript. I am not sure about text-transform, because I don't know which styling the author had in mind. He may want to color every word's first letter differently. div is actually a neutral block element. The neutral inline element span would seem like the better choice to wrap letters or single words in the example. But you could wrap the whole line into one div. I would not use h1 because My Website is neither a heading for the content of the page (unless maybe on the front page or a sitemap) nor for a section of the page. It could be intended as a title for the whole website, i.e. all its pages together, or as some kind of logo or branding. I don't think we have a dedicated element for either of these interpretations. Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning title for the entirety of pages of a website. How would this be interpreted, if such an element is used with different content on different pages of the same website? I think such an element would cause inconsistencies all the time. It isn't a good idea. Let's assume we would introduce a new element with the meaning logo, branding. What would its benefits be compared to div? And would authors still want to use it if add-blockers get a little more aggressive and offer the option to block logos? Martin Links: -- [1]
Re: [whatwg] Site-Wide Heading Element
Pontus, you are right noticing the domain HAD or HAS nothing to do necessarily, and the idea exposed before here in this thread was just this, _an idea_. a WILL or a MIGHT. Just keep in mind these _gTLD_ are new -- we would have not imagine years ago, one will have to deal with specific domains like dev which will open new uses for the web. New IPv6, comes in mind. My observations were just annotations to what is defined in the section 4.3.7 of the living HTML5.1 spec for the element _header_. In our modern era of linked data, I just noticed there is a certain misuse, and some unresolved circumstances , for structural elements presented in a website. And the HTML spec SHOULD have to solve these inaccuracies. Of course, as it has been mentioned in this thread before, we do have structural elements like div or span that can handle well our needs of_ flowing content_. Surfing the web through a weareable, not a device, makes this requirement, expressed above, more clear._ Siri , find me the logo of the company XXX, an place it in the upper left of the page providers featured in my website_. A logo tag would be nice for the search of Siri, wouldn't be? Solution: Taking in consideration, if I am not wrong, that an HTML element is _not just a tag_, probably, an ARIA _role logo_ would accomplish these needs easily. My suggestion -- and logo was just one -- goes far from this solution, it is for a future extension of what represents a_ non-sectioning_ element like _header_,_ footer_ wrapping _sectioning_ content, like the element h1. To apply the same methods done in HTML3.1 , in our century, when we are making websites and see the rendered result in a browser, makes no sense to me.But who knows. Apologies for the verbosity Cheers --- Delfi Ramirez My digital signature [5] +34 633 589231 del...@segonquart.net [6] twitter: delfinramirez IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [7] http://segonquart.net [3] http://delfiramirez.info [4] On 2015-07-01 23:18, Pontus Horn af Rantzien wrote: The domain does not necessarily correspond to or have any relation to the website name. Furthermore, the domain is not necessarily readable language - how does a screen reader know how to pronounce alistapart.com [1]? It could just as well read Ali's Tap Art. You're right that it could have some security implications if presented as trustworthy, but I'd argue there are ways to hinder that as long as it's taken into account in specification. Pontus On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 at 22:31 Jonathan Zuckerman j.zucker...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that the title/banner/logo element doesn't add much value. I don't feel like a tag to canonically declare the website name would add much value either - isn't that what the domain is for? Also the tag wouldn't be very trustworthy - the domain is less easy to lie about. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Pontus Horn af Rantzien pontus.h...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see too much value in having a special element for the website title/logo/branding as shown in-page. I *can* see some value in canonically defining the website name inside head, e.g. for accessibility purposes. Let's say you navigate to a site you're not familiar with via search results, a link, etc. You skip to the content as that's what you're interested in, but you like the content and want to find out the name of the website. To my knowledge, there's no go-to place for that information. It might be part of the title or an h1, but both of those elements relate more to the page than the larger site. To me it'd make sense to define such an element as a companion to title. Many authors currently lump the website name and the page title together in an arbitrary format inside title. Having a separate element for the website name would serve to discourage that, and would let user agents present the two pieces of information in a consistent and predictable way. Regards, Pontus On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 12:46 Delfi Ramirez del...@segonquart.net wrote: logo sounds nice to me. As far as we move onto standarized browsers and mobile devices as the way we connect to the web, the proposed logo could be equal to the reference or representation shown in _svg=icon _or_ link-rel=ico_ Just thinking. --- Delfi Ramirez My digital signature [1] +34 633 589231 [2] del...@segonquart.net [2] twitter: delfinramirez IRC: segonquart Skype: segonquart [3] http://segonquart.net [3] [4] http://delfiramirez.info [4] [5] On 2015-06-30 11:48, Martin Janecke wrote: On 30.06.15 03:18, Garrett Smith wrote: On 6/29/15, Barry Smith bearzt...@live.com wrote: From: Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com Hey Garrett, My apologizes for not replying until now. When I posted my reply to the Site-Wide Heading Element thread, you were right and I should have posted a more complete example. Here is what I should have given as an example: header id=banner script
