On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:25:24 -0400
rob.cavicc...@emc.com wrote:
ill using it.
The HTML5 specification isn't scheduled to become a recommendation
until 2022.
Where've you seen that Rob?
So HTML5 as a replacement for the current HTML output types certainly
does not appear to be a viable
Dave Pawson [mailto:da...@dpawson.co.uk] wrote:
The HTML5 specification isn't scheduled to become a recommendation
until 2022.
Where've you seen that Rob?
Going back and re-reading it more carefully, I see that it is more of an
estimate provided by one person, so scheduled was a
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:35:42 +0200
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote:
Dave Pawson wrote:
I'm curious why you are so anti?
I'm not anti, I'm trying to be pragmatic. And I don't see what
advantages can bring HTML5 output generated from DocBook to end users.
Would you argue against all
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:35:13 -0700
Bob Stayton b...@sagehill.net wrote:
When I go to the W3C website, I see that HTML5 is only in the stage
of W3C Working Draft as of 24 June 2010. If we are going to
implement support for HTML5, it should be on an experimental level,
no?
Bob Stayton
Dave Pawson wrote:
These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
there without using supplement Javascript library.
That doesn't make sense to me Jirka. They are elements, CSS can be used,
why not?
If the fallback does no harm in ancient browsers, whats the
]
Sent: 15. august 2010 23:51
To: docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Re: html 5, as a target
On Sunday, August 15, 2010 02:35:42 pm Jirka Kosek wrote:
structure
navigation
These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be
CSS styled
On Monday, August 16, 2010 01:59:44 am Jirka Kosek wrote:
Larry Garfield wrote:
These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
there without using supplement Javascript library.
So? That doesn't mean they are valueless. There's nothing wrong with
using those
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Dave Pawson da...@dpawson.co.uk wrote:
Anyway those elements doesn't bring any new user experience.
But they do bring better semantics?
I think the rejection of a DocBook-XSL patch adding a distinct HTML5
output (perhaps in the
Larry Garfield wrote:
div class=nav
then
nav + some funky Javascript
But nav without needing JS is better still. So for those producers that
choose to use it, their HTML5-supporting users will get a superior experience
Superior experience from nav? Could you elaborate please?
So
Keith Fahlgren wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:58 PM, Dave Pawson da...@dpawson.co.uk wrote:
Anyway those elements doesn't bring any new user experience.
But they do bring better semantics?
I think the rejection of a DocBook-XSL patch adding a distinct HTML5
output (perhaps in the
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:00:06 +0200
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote:
unctionality there is no reason for switching to HTML5.
Better SEO through more semantic markup seems like a perfectly good
bit of functionality to me.
ROTFL
More seriously, are you aware of any search engine which
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:10:51 +0200
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote:
What's real advantage of using:
article + above show funky Javascript
over completely static and proven:
div class=article
? To my knowledge there is no single real advantage
OK, you've made your point Jirka.
Larry Garfield [mailto:la...@garfieldtech.com] wrote:
That varies widely depending on your market. The main site I use DocBook
for
is 50% Firefox users and less than 2% IE 6; A few months ago I officially
announced that our software doesn't care about IE 6 any more, and I'm not
really going
On Monday, August 16, 2010 10:25:24 am rob.cavicc...@emc.com wrote:
The HTML5 specification isn't scheduled to become a recommendation until
2022.
That's something of a red herring. By W3C rules it can't become a
recommendation until at least 2 complete implementations exist in the wild.
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:19:09 +0200
Jirka Kosek ji...@kosek.cz wrote:
Jochen Hayek wrote:
How many new features of HTML5 our DocBook might even make use
of, mentioning HTML5 *is* a *factor*. You should be aware of that.
No offense, but I suggest you to study HTML5 and its support in
When I go to the W3C website, I see that HTML5 is only in the stage of W3C Working
Draft as of 24 June 2010. If we are going to implement support for HTML5, it should
be on an experimental level, no?
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
b...@sagehill.net
Dave Pawson wrote:
I'm curious why you are so anti?
I'm not anti, I'm trying to be pragmatic. And I don't see what
advantages can bring HTML5 output generated from DocBook to end users.
Would you argue against all its features:
A11y
Do you have idea how and when DocBook markup should be
On Sunday, August 15, 2010 02:35:42 pm Jirka Kosek wrote:
structure
navigation
These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
there without using supplement Javascript library.
So? That doesn't mean they are valueless. There's nothing wrong with using
those
18 matches
Mail list logo
