[WSG] Aside and section

Is it ok to nest elements inside the element? Can't come up with anything about this scenario on Google... I'll have a first real attempt at an HTML5 page for critique soon... -- Tom Livingston | Senior Interactive Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com

Re: [WSG] Aside and section

On 1/24/11 2:41 PM, Tom Livingston wrote: Is it ok to nest elements inside the element? Can't come up with anything about this scenario on Google... I'll have a first real attempt at an HTML5 page for critique soon... Yes.

Re: [WSG] Aside and section

On 1/24/11 4:37 PM, David Laakso wrote: On 1/24/11 2:41 PM, Tom Livingston wrote: Is it ok to nest elements inside the element? Can't come up with anything about this scenario on Google... I'll have a first real attempt at an HTML5 page for critique soon... Yes. Best, ~d Whoops. I was

[WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

Hello, Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced new semantic elements such as , etc., but does this really increase the expressive power of the markup? Can't the same thing be achieved in HTML 4.x using classes (e.g. )? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

I use HTML5 as my doctype, but I don't use the new tags. It's wise to be very concerned about backwards compatibility. Are they more semantic - I suppose. If IE doesn't understand the new tags I'd leave them be until another day. *Joseph R. B. Taylor* /Web Designer/Developer/

RE: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

>? Can't the same thing be achieved in HTML 4.x using classes Not really. The power of semantics really has to lie in the fact that they are used consistently across a wide range of disparate systems. The fact that all the sites you build have a consistent ‘header’ class in them doesn’t mean that

Re: [WSG] Aside and section

> Is it ok to nest elements inside the element? Can't > come up with anything about this scenario on Google... Hi. The section element represents a generic section of a document or application. A section, in this context, is a thematic grouping of content, typically with a heading. The asi

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

> > Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced > new semantic elements such as , etc., but does this really > increase the expressive power of the markup? Can't the same thing be achieved > in HTML 4.x using classes (e.g. )? > > I am reluctant to move to H

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

> I use HTML5 as my doctype, but I don't use the new tags. It's wise to be very > concerned about backwards compatibility. > Are they more semantic - I suppose. If IE doesn't understand the new tags I'd > leave them be until another day. Hi. Is the backwards compatibility really a problem? Wha

RE: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

So called 'semantic classnames' are not semantic at all except in the case of microformats. The whole point of semantic markup is that the author and user agree on the terminology and the meaning, and that is not the case with semantic classnames no matter how obvious they may seem to you. Microfo

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

On 25 January 2011 09:44, wrote: > > Hello, > > Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has > introduced new semantic elements such as , etc., but does > this really increase the expressive power of the markup? > In the long run, yes this increases the expressive power of

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

One word : semantics. It all has to do with what the tags mean to the computer. For example, you can write to specify that the markup in that div is code and should be displayed as such. However, to the browser, the means nothing more than . They're both just divs. Now, if you use the new code e

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced new semantic elements such as , etc., but does this really increase the expressive power of the markup? Can't the same thing be achieved in HTML 4.x using classes (e.g. class="header">)? I am reluctant to move to

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Christian Snodgrass wrote: One word : semantics. It all has to do with what the tags mean to the computer. For example, you can write to specify that the markup in that div is code and should be displayed as such. However, to the browser, the means nothing more than . They

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Christian Snodgrass wrote: >> Now, if you use the new code element instead, that tells the browser it is >> code. > >   There's a new code element? How does it differ from the old one? Without using additional attri

RE: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

> At the moment, HTML5 doesn't really bring a significant benefit, but > that will change (in years rather than months). I beg to differ. I believe there are a lot of great stuff that we can start using today (mostly related to form controls). See http://diveintohtml5.org/forms.html and this one

RE: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

Hi Grant As html 5 new tag are not supported to the IE7 and older version as well. For your query regard the use of I preferred to use instead of the tag. tag has his own value for the margin… and this will difficult to maintain the same space in IE and firefox. Regards Biren

Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

On 25/01/2011 12:34 PM, Christian Snodgrass wrote: > One word : semantics. > Assuming authors use the element in the same way, and assuming the element has only one semantic meaning possible. -- Andrew Cunningham Senior Project Manager, Research and Development Vicnet State Library of Victori

RE: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x

Hi Geroge Visit this article and read the article 4.4. this will give you all the answer you have. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ Have a nice day Birendra -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf