[WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

2010-11-10 Thread Eric Taylor
Hi all - this is my first time sending to the list, but was looking for 
feedback on marking up forms in HTML5. Granted the spec is still a work in 
progress, but I was wondering if there was any current conversation about this 
multiple techniques of marking up forms via HTML5.

As stated, the purpose of this conversation is the marking up of forms. 
Currently, from what I have read, there are various ways of going about this. 
I'll name a couple that I have personally used, and I am interested in hearing 
feedback from you all about what you prefer and why.

From my experience, the best practice, currently, is using Description lists; 
however, my concern with this method is the lack of semantic grouping when 
using this set of elements.

Another method I have used is using an Unordered list to group each field 
inside of a list item. However, this doesn't seem like it makes as much sense, 
semantically, as the Description list.

What do you all think, and how do you go about marking up your forms in HTML5?

Thanks in advance,

Eric Taylor
 Elements Aside /
http://www.elementsaside.com

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***


Re: [WSG] HTML5 - Marking up forms

2010-11-10 Thread Eric Taylor
Understandable; however, with the change in HTML5 from Definition Lists to 
Description lists, would it not be more semantically valuable to mark forms up 
using dt and dd, for labels and inputs, providing the document with a more 
solid structure? As stated, my concern with this is the lack of grouping per 
item, when using Description Lists.

I understand that paragraphs may be easier to handle when marking up forms and 
doing the CSS; however, is it a meaningful method of marking up forms that 
supports the forward progression of HTML5 and front-end development in general?

This is the main reason I'm torn between Description lists and 
Unordered/Ordered lists. What makes most sense from a semantics view, and where 
is the balance between semantics and ease-of-use?

Eric Taylor
 Elements Aside /
http://www.elementsaside.com

On Nov 10, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Patrick H. Lauke re...@splintered.co.uk wrote:

 On 10/11/2010 17:08, Eric Taylor wrote:
 From my experience, the best practice, currently, is using Description
 lists; however, my concern with this method is the lack of semantic
 grouping when using this set of elements.
 
 Another method I have used is using an Unordered list to group each
 field inside of a list item. However, this doesn't seem like it makes as
 much sense, semantically, as the Description list.
 
 What do you all think, and how do you go about marking up your forms in
 HTML5?
 
 HTML5 does not add any new semantics or constructs to mark up the structure 
 of forms, it only adds new types, a few features (autofocus for instance) and 
 validation functionality.
 
 How you actually structure the lot is still as before (and there are still 
 likely heated arguments over which way is good or not...personally, I just 
 use paragraphs, as the extra structure of lists is just overkill in my 
 opinion)
 
 P
 -- 
 Patrick H. Lauke
 __
 re∑dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
 [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
 
 www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
 http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
 __
 twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
 __
 
 
 ***
 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] disallow IE6 to load the main style sheet

2010-12-18 Thread Eric Taylor
Good points James. When I think about cross-browser compatibility, I try to 
keep the following points in mind:

1 - Websites don't have to look the same in each browser. This doesn't mean 
that you can ignore how pages render in browsers you don't care about; it means 
that if Chrome displays rounded corners, and IE6 does not, this is still 
acceptable, so long as it doesn't look wrong or broken to someone using IE6.

2 - To piggyback off 1, make the experience usable and consistent in each 
browser. This is the short and sweet rule I try to live by when making CSS 
decisions.

3 - There is no such thing as a compliant browser. Some browsers support 
functionality that we are looking to begin using, but so long as browsers are 
not designing to a universal standard, expect there to be rendering differences 
and variety of support.

So I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that you should be designing for 
the latest browsers, then implement override stylesheets for older browsers 
such as IE6/7. So long as your presentation looks finished, consistent, and 
usable in each browser individually, you're good to go. Don't let those old 
browsers affect your core stylesheet(s).

Eric Taylor
 Elements Aside /
http://www.elementsaside.com

On Dec 18, 2010, at 11:16 PM, James Ducker jduc...@ieee.org wrote:

 
 Imho, we should take care of any layout issue, but not try to get fancy
 effects via extra markup, images, filters, and other hacks. In short, IE6
 should get layout fixes and miss on properties like border-radius,
 opacity, etc.
 So no need for a specific styles sheet imo.
 
 
 The reason for this is twofold though: firstly, you want to coax people off 
 of IE6. Secondly, you want to keep their user experience sane. IE6's 
 rendering engine was not designed with many of today's more modern layouts 
 and techniques in mind, and the average IE6 user will have an average XP box 
 that will chug like hell on large or JS-or-DOM-complicated pages.
 
 - James
  
 -- 
 James Ducker
 Web Developer
 http://www.studioj.net.au
 
 ***
 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] disallow IE6 to load the main style sheet

2010-12-18 Thread Eric Taylor
Also, I forgot to mention - If you are looking to get people to move to a newer 
browser, simple implement a small banner, maybe static header or footer, that 
recommends some newer browsers.

This can be added into your override CSS file for the outdated browser(s).

Eric Taylor
 Elements Aside /
http://www.elementsaside.com

On Dec 18, 2010, at 11:16 PM, James Ducker jduc...@ieee.org wrote:

 
 Imho, we should take care of any layout issue, but not try to get fancy
 effects via extra markup, images, filters, and other hacks. In short, IE6
 should get layout fixes and miss on properties like border-radius,
 opacity, etc.
 So no need for a specific styles sheet imo.
 
 
 The reason for this is twofold though: firstly, you want to coax people off 
 of IE6. Secondly, you want to keep their user experience sane. IE6's 
 rendering engine was not designed with many of today's more modern layouts 
 and techniques in mind, and the average IE6 user will have an average XP box 
 that will chug like hell on large or JS-or-DOM-complicated pages.
 
 - James
  
 -- 
 James Ducker
 Web Developer
 http://www.studioj.net.au
 
 ***
 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] disallow IE6 to load the main style sheet

2010-12-18 Thread Eric Taylor
Agreed. Our job is to provide the best web experience the user can have. To do 
this, the user will optimally have the most up-to-date browser, as to 
experience the latest web technology available.

Eric Taylor
 Elements Aside /
http://www.elementsaside.com

On Dec 18, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote:

 On 2010/12/18 20:33 (GMT-0800) Thierry Koblentz composed:
 
 The reason for this is twofold though: firstly, you want to coax people off 
 of IE6.
 
 I don't think that's our job...
 
 Who better? Wouldn't you rather IE6/7 disappear sooner than later? You enjoy 
 the extra effort the too many years of its massive non-conformity causes?
 -- 
 The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
 words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
 
 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
 
 Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
 
 
 ***
 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
***