On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
New elements like nav and footer have the problem that some existing
user agents don't recognize them, even for the purposes of styling.
This is only a transient problem for a few years, and a minor one at that
-- you can always add CSS to make
2012-01-27 21:33, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
New elements likenav andfooter have the problem that some existing
user agents don't recognize them, even for the purposes of styling.
This is only a transient problem for a few years, and a minor one at
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-01-27 21:33, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
New elements likenav andfooter have the problem that some
existing user agents don't recognize them, even for the purposes of
styling.
This is only
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
There are no such plans. I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's
definitely incorrect.
~TJ
I didn't say that WHATWG is planning it but that I heard I believe from a
talk on mozilla hacks by Chris Heilmann(but i
30.10.2011 1:18, Eric Sh. wrote:
I heard there are plans to create new tags for layouts to replace the
use of tables as layout elements.
Maybe such rumors have been caused by taking some parody for real.
You keep speaking of creating new attributes instead of adding new tags
but then what
2011-10-30 00:18, Eric Sh. skrev:
I heard there are plans to create new tags for layouts to replace the use
of tables as layout elements.
You have heard exactly what? Where? Spoke by whom?
That would certainly be very controversial!
--
Keryx Web (Lars Gunther)
http://keryx.se/
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Eric Sh. shedok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
It is certainly wise to keep table as dual (tabular data vs. layout) for
compatibility, instead of introducing new elements to distinguish them - no
Hello all
The main discussions missing from this thread is the actual semantic
meaning of especially nav.
First of all, the semantic value should be conveyed to assistive
technologies.
Before that is happening I'd say it is NOT implemented in any really
usable fashion by browsers. AFAIK
27.10.2011 3:11, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
Try telling me
Google isn't aware of HTML5 in web pages and I'll laugh.
OK, I'll try: Google does not care about new HTML5 elements. Do you feel
amused now?
Can you please now do me, and others, a favor and give some evidence of
actual Google
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 16:38 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Can you please now do me, and others, a favor and give some evidence of
actual Google behavior in this respect? If it's something that we need
to be aware of, it should be observable from outside Google, i.e. when
using Google,
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
It is certainly wise to keep table as dual (tabular data vs. layout) for
compatibility, instead of introducing new elements to distinguish them - no
matter how logical or semantic such an idea might sound.
I heard
27.10.2011 5:38, Eric Sh. wrote:
And if we stop adding new features old browsers do not support or not use
them because very little browsers are not supporting them then it would
completely stop innovation and the evolution of the web.
How does this relate to the question of adding element
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 09:28 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
27.10.2011 5:38, Eric Sh. wrote:
And if we stop adding new features old browsers do not support or not use
them because very little browsers are not supporting them then it would
completely stop innovation and the evolution of
27.10.2011 9:55, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
There is no _required_ functionality or default rendering for nav or
article and no special attributes for them. What you lose by having
them as elements rather than attributes is that you cannot style them in
a manner that works on all browsers.
nav
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:36:23 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi
wrote:
So, it's not a big deal.
It's difference between working on all browsers and working on some
browsers as well as being tweakable when JavaScript is enabled.
div type=nav is not stylable in IE6 because it
27.10.2011 11:42, Simon Pieters wrote:
It's difference between working on all browsers and working on some
browsers as well as being tweakable when JavaScript is enabled.
div type=nav is not stylable in IE6 because it doesn't support
attribute selectors.
Granted, but
a) IE6 is dying,
How does this relate to the question of adding element vs. adding
attributes?
I am saying that they also added div which is the most famous tag to
date(added in HTML 4), so maybe we should have used tag type=div and tag
type=img that way all browsers would support it no?
They could do just the
Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
27.10.2011 9:55, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
There is no _required_ functionality or default rendering for nav
or
article and no special attributes for them. What you lose by
having
them as elements rather than attributes is that you cannot style
them
New elements like nav and footer have the problem that some existing
user agents don't recognize them, even for the purposes of styling. So
if you want to use nav, then - unless you're using it for purely
semantic reasons with no idea of styling - you need to use some special
trick to make old
Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi schrieb am Wed, 26 Oct 2011
22:38:06 +0300:
New elements like nav and footer have the problem that some
existing user agents don't recognize them, even for the purposes of
styling. So if you want to use nav, then - unless you're using it
for purely semantic
(11/10/27 3:38), Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Nobody needs new elements with no required functionality, really. The
idea of more compact markup is pointless.
Every time I ask myself what the use cases of the semantic elements are,
my only answer is it makes existing markup shorter.
What else use
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fi wrote:
New elements like nav and footer have the problem that some existing
user agents don't recognize them, even for the purposes of styling. So if
you want to use nav, then - unless you're using it for purely semantic
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 04:14 +0800, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
(11/10/27 3:38), Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Nobody needs new elements with no required functionality, really. The
idea of more compact markup is pointless.
Every time I ask myself what the use cases of the semantic elements are,
26.10.2011 23:16, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Believe me, these discussions were had in the past.
I do, but did you draw the conclusions?
All major UAs except old IE handle unknown elements in a way that's
acceptable
That means all browsers except that the most common one. Is that a
realistic
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 00:36 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
26.10.2011 23:16, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Believe me, these discussions were had in the past.
I do, but did you draw the conclusions?
All major UAs except old IE handle unknown elements in a way that's
acceptable
That means
27.10.2011 0:57, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
If people are using versions of IE that old, then
they deserve to have an older version of the web given to them.
That's rather elitistic, given the fact that many people have no way of
upgrading their IE or switching to your preferred browser, and no
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 02:37 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
27.10.2011 0:57, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
If people are using versions of IE that old, then
they deserve to have an older version of the web given to them.
That's rather elitistic, given the fact that many people have no way of
If the web was only using the first tags such as(I think) pre then the web
woul not be where it is today.
And if we stop adding new features old browsers do not support or not use
them because very little browsers are not supporting them then it would
completely stop innovation and the evolution
28 matches
Mail list logo
