On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Steve Green wrote:
Both those examples are interesting, and underpin my hesitation to move to
HTML5.
In 2004 one of the largest London design agencies persuaded a corporate
client that they could build a complex website using pure CSS layout. We did
the
and
interesting, not because they provide better value for their clients.
Steve
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of tee
Sent: 27 January 2011 00:40
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4
(or not).
It's not just 'cool', it's advisable - if you want to make an informed decision.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Steve Green
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
In my view it depends on who you are and who
there
was any value in it.
Steve
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of designer
Sent: 27 January 2011 13:14
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
I hear what you are saying Steve, but isn't
...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On
Behalf Of *designer
*Sent:* 27 January 2011 13:14
*To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
*Subject:* Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
I hear what you are saying Steve, but isn't that always the case?
The HTML5 scenario is becoming* de rigueur* now, just as a) tables vs divs
14:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
I think it's all a matter of careful implementation. All such new things
must be used in agreement with client. Using graceful degradation,
knowing which browsers to support, what technologies available, etc. If
we
I found this link interesting within the context of the current discussion.
HTML: The standard that failed?
HTML is officially whatever the top browser vendors say it is at the moment.
You call that a standard?
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/html-the-standard-failed-585
Christie
On 1/27/11 6:42 AM, Steve Green wrote:
That's exactly my point. At any point in time there will be projects
where you should use safe, well-understood, well-supported
technologies and there will be other projects where you can try out
new cutting-edge ones. When making this choice, you should
Koblentz
Sent: Tue 25/01/2011 04:29
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: 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
]
On Behalf Of Ted Drake
Sent: 26 January 2011 18:43
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
Hi Steve
Can you give some links to research that back up this statement? As far
as I know, the screen readers will accept the new tags when you are
using something other than Internet
On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Steve Green wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, all screen readers will 'accept' the new tags
insofar as they will read the content between the tags. They just won't do
anything with the tags themselves.
On 1/25/11 12:34 AM, Steve Green
that they do. So what
exactly is the benefit?
Steve
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org on behalf of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: Tue 25/01/2011 04:29
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
At the moment, HTML5 doesn't really bring
On 25 Jan 2011, at 08:34, Steve Green wrote:
You can use it, but will anyone benefit from it? Assistive technologies don't
support much, if any, of the new semantics. I don't know if search engines
and other users of programmatic access to websites are currently able to make
use of HTML5
different if you're building websites that will be around
for years.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: 25 January 2011 09:52
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
You can use it, but will anyone benefit from it? Assistive technologies don't
support much, if any, of the new semantics. I don't know if search engines
and other users of programmatic access to websites are currently able to make
use of HTML5 markup, but I have not seen anything to
On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:52 AM, David Dorward wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 08:34, Steve Green wrote:
You can use it, but will anyone benefit from it? Assistive technologies
don't support much, if any, of the new semantics. I don't know if search
engines and other users of programmatic
You can use it, but will anyone benefit from it? Assistive technologies
don't support much, if any, of the new semantics. I don't know if search
engines and other users of programmatic access to websites are currently
able to make use of HTML5 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate
that
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
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/
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
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
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
(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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
