[WSG] Aside and section
Is it ok to nest section elements inside the aside 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 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Aside and section
On 1/24/11 2:41 PM, Tom Livingston wrote: Is it ok to nestsection elements inside theaside 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. http://gsnedders.html5.org/outliner/ http://html5.validator.nu/ Best, ~d -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ http://chelseacreekstudio.com/fa/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 nestsection elements inside theaside 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 thinking section inside article ! Dunno about section inside aside. Try it and check it on the html5 outliner sent earlier. ~d -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ http://chelseacreekstudio.com/fa/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[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 header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Regards, Grant Bailey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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/ -- Sites by Joe, LLC /Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design/ Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com Phone: (855) WEB-DESN Email: j...@sitesbyjoe.com On 1/24/11 5:44 PM, grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au wrote: Hello, Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced new semantic elements such as header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Regards, Grant Bailey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 I am using the same class in the sites I build – I might be using the class ‘heading’ for example. Any spider or machine trying to read our code has to try an disambiguate the fact that when I use ‘heading’ I mean the same thing as you using ‘header’. And all through classes – which is not the correct place for that kind of semantic information anyway. Adding the newer semantic elements allows robots, spiders and machine oriented user-agents to make more sense of more content and even infer more again (for example they can start making relationships between content and associated aside elements). From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au Sent: Tuesday, 25 January 2011 9:45 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [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 header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Regards, Grant Bailey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Aside and section
Is it ok to nest section elements inside the aside 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 aside element represents a section of a page that consists of content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and which could be considered separate from that content. According to this you may nest section inside aside element, but is that ok, that you have as many unrelated content on the page, that you want divide it to different sections? This make no sense to me. Could we see the page, where you want to use section inside aside element? Or jpg with design? If you just need a wrapper — use div instead. And from technical point of view — aside and section just block level elements. You may use them how you want to. All best regards. Imp. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Hi. What is shorter head or div class=header? And what is more easy to parse head or all this div class=head, div class=header, span class=eagle_nest, i class=singOnTheTop big butt blue? And what is more easy to support? Common semantic meaning and coding style is pretty helpful, when on html work more than one developer. Regards, Imp. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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? What about http://code.google.com/p/html5shiv/ !--[if lt IE 9] script src=http://html5shiv.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/html5.js;/script ![endif]-- Don't work without js? Hm ... you don't use expression's to achieve backwards compatibility with ie6-7? If you are using theme, than why bothering about using script to get new tags work? Regards, Imp. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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. Microformats are the only case I know of where the meanings of classnames have been agreed, published and have some level of take-up. It is possible that smaller groups of people have created their own private schemas. At the moment, HTML5 doesn't really bring a significant benefit, but that will change (in years rather than months). Steve From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au Sent: 24 January 2011 22:45 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [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 header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Regards, Grant Bailey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
On 25 January 2011 09:44, grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au wrote: Hello, Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced new semantic elements such as header, aside etc., but does this really increase the expressive power of the markup? In the long run, yes this increases the expressive power of markup. Some moves are more obviously practical than others, eg. section means for the first time HTML can have heading levels more than six deep - lawyers' web developers will be pleased ;) Pity we didn't get a generic heading element to go with section, but cest la vie. Can't the same thing be achieved in HTML 4.x using classes (e.g. p class=header)? Yes, the same semantics could have been applied using attributes; but the WHATWG chose to mint new elements instead. Although few systems make real/significant use of the new semantic elements, in time they will and they provide some meaning HTML4 could not provide with elements alone. On the flip side, you can do basically the same thing right away using HTML4/XHTML and WAI-ARIA (and for some specific cases, Microformats); and I've seen a few recommendations to use both HTML5 and WAI-ARIA together, with WAI-ARIA bridging the implementation gaps in the meantime. I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. There's no harm moving to the doctype and just sticking to the HTML4 element set - that way you can legitimately start using new features as they are supported (sites like http://caniuse.com/ help identify those). There's also no harm sticking HTML4, you just can't (validly) use the new HTML5 markup features. If you're maintaining a web app that already requires JS for functionality, there's no real harm using a javascript solution like shiv to enable use of the new elements across browsers. So it all depends what you need to achieve and what benefit you'd get from HTML5. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 div class=code 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 div class=happyfuntime. They're both just divs. Now, if you use the new code element instead, that tells the browser it is code. I've been reluctant as well, but today I decided to start implementing some of the elements and switched to the HTML doctype for a major project I'm working on. Hope that helps. -Christian On Jan 24, 2011 2:49 PM, grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au wrote: Hello, Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced new semantic elements such as header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Regards, Grant Bailey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. If you're just switching doctype - for a start - there aren't any backwards compatibility issues. After all: the new, short, HTML 5 DOCTYPE is introduced because they needed a compact mode-switch – and for no other reason. Good browsers still don't need it, but IE sure does. http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html Unless you really need any of the new elements right now, it makes sense to just switch to HTML 5 doctype and relax on all else - including backwards compatibility - until the time seems right ... in a few years time. regards Georg *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 div class=code 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 div class=happyfuntime. They're both just divs. 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? -- Chris F.A. Johnson, http://cfajohnson.com/ Author: Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson ch...@cfajohnson.com 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 attributes, I don't see much difference in the specs: HTML4: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.1 Designates a fragment of computer code. -- HTML5: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/text-level-semantics.html#the-code-element The code element represents a fragment of computer code. This could be an XML element name, a filename, a computer program, or any other string that a computer would recognize. Although there is no formal way to indicate the language of computer code being marked up, authors who wish to mark code elements with the language used, e.g. so that syntax highlighting scripts can use the right rules, may do so by adding a class prefixed with language- to the element. -- Scott Elcomb http://www.psema4.com/ @psema4 Member of the Pirate Party of Canada http://www.pirateparty.ca/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 about datalist http://adactio.com/journal/4272/. -- Regards, Thierry @thierrykoblentz www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | www.css-101.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 p class-“Header” I preferred to use div instead of the p tag. p tag has his own value for the margin… and this will difficult to maintain the same space in IE and firefox. Regards Birendra From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of grant_malcolm_bai...@westnet.com.au Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:15 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [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 header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. I would be grateful for any replies. Regards, Grant Bailey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
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 Victoria 328 Swanston Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Ph: +61-3-8664-7430 Mobile: 0459-806-589 Fax: +61-3-9639-2175 Email: andr...@vicnet.net.au Alt. email: lang.supp...@gmail.com http://home.vicnet.net.au/~andrewc/ http://www.openroad.net.au http://www.vicnet.net.au http://www.slv.vic.gov.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***attachment: andrewc.vcf
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 Of G.Sørtun Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:14 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: 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 header, aside 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. p class=header)? I am reluctant to move to HTML5 due to the issue of backwards compatibility. If you're just switching doctype - for a start - there aren't any backwards compatibility issues. After all: the new, short, HTML 5 DOCTYPE is introduced because they needed a compact mode-switch – and for no other reason. Good browsers still don't need it, but IE sure does. http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_34.html Unless you really need any of the new elements right now, it makes sense to just switch to HTML 5 doctype and relax on all else - including backwards compatibility - until the time seems right ... in a few years time. regards Georg *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
