On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM, austincheney <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 5:26 pm, Andrew Dodson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was looking athttp://www.html11.org/ > > > > <http://www.html11.org/>And wondered if the <religion> element will > expose a > > save() method with a callback handler. > > I was just looking at HTML11, and am sorely disappointed. I'm also disappointed, for reasons similar to yours (i think, though I'm not exactly sure since your vocabulary is considerably larger than mine). Briefly, my complaints are: 1) not every new HTML11 addition has to be a new *element*, 2) class names are not appropriate for specifying these elements' behavior, 3) the purpose of the element's content is never expressed. Many of the new elements would be better as new attributes instead of elements. For instance, instead of the <religion> element, I'd rather see it as an attribute. Something like: <section religion="christianity">Jesus Saves!</section> or <audio religion="buddhism" src="sounds/one-hand-clapping.ogg">You are not zen.</audio> You could then have CSS like: [religion="christianity"] { background-image: url(../images/jesus.png) }. I think THAT would have real value. Speaking of religions, if we're adding new elements i think a <rant> element would be apropos. Example: <rant religion=standardista>Long Live Graceful Degradation! Progressive Enhancement 4-Eva!! Love Me Some Zeldman!</rant>. All of the new element examples are of the element wrapping an image. I'm assuming that for all the new elements, content placed inside the element is for user agents that do not support the new element, though that's not expressed. Additionally, for some of the elements it seems inappropriate for them to have content. For instance, the <silence> tag is one of my personal favorites. But why would you wrap an image of a loudspeaker in a <silence>? Silence should *by definition* be an empty element. Browsers that don't recognize it can (and should) do nothing. Also, it should have attributes for duration, which could be expressed in milliseconds or relative values such as 'uncomfortably-long.' Maybe also a boolean attribute for <silence golden />. The <wind> element is a great idea, though the speed should not be specified with a class name. Instead it could have a 'velocity' attribute that could be expressed in knots or meters/second. The direction and the focus or spread would be nice to control also. The example for the <temperature> element is just silly. <temperature class=" celsius 8">?!? "8" isn't even a valid class name!! I think we need a <wtf> element. Thinking about it more, the attributes for taste, temperature, smell should go in their own module. It would be something like CSS, however i don't think it belongs in CSS since CSS is primarily for *visual* styling. This module could be something like Multi-Sensory Attribute Specification or MSAS (or something much punnier/sassier). With MSAS, you could describe an elements smell, taste, texture, temperature, etc. A JavaScript API built around those multi-sensory interactions would be freaking awesome. (See, JavaScript! This thread is now relevant to this forum!) In summary, I really like what they are trying to do here, but the "everything is an element with optional class names" is a very, very limited way to convey these import properties. The whole API needs to be retooled before there is any hope of adoption by the major browser vendors. (I smell a working group!) Ben Barber P.S. In case it's not clear, I do *get* HTML11. I think it's funny, but it could be WAY better if the authors actually *got* HTML. In some ways it reminds me of Google's Annotation Gallery for Java ( http://code.google.com/p/gag/), but much less awesome. -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
