Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
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 compatibility testing (Netscape 6, IE6, Opera 6 etc) and it was disastrous. The site eventually launched months late, over budget and it still looked awful in some major browsers. It was years too early to try anything like that, and they could see that from the alpha test results but they ploughed on. But CSS is presentational language, it defines layout's integrity, it does not defined markup and the semantic, so that was a cosmetic in-compatility issue. The CSS layout issues we experienced in those version 6 browsers wouldn't be the same type of issue we may face if we start adapting HTML5 now. In 2004, anyone who can fix IE6 layout issue is a master of the gurus that we worship. CSS in 2004 was considered a new technology with the browsers available at that period, and HTML5 in 2011 is a new technology, but we have learned so much between 2004 and 2010 and learned from our mistake I would like to think so, and what is available today is very different from what we had in 2004. A site note, the example you used of that Landon agency had more to do with one company's competency, really have nothing to do with this very topic. It will take developers longer to build sites using HTML5 the first time absolutely, but whether a client should pay for it, this goes to individual developer's professionalism and ethic IMHO (e.g. make client pays for your learning curve) so has nothing or very little to do with the topic. Where I grew up, we don't do this sort of thing to anyone. Coming back to your earlier comment: who will benefit it with the HTML5 technology and that assistive technologies don't support much, if any, of the new semantics. I think it worths exploring more as it will actually help us better and more prepare to advice our clients. Perhaps the skepticism and question should be: 1. Will using HTML5 elements now blocking assistive devices users from accessing the contents that are wrapped inside the elements? 2. And instead of who will benefit it, perhaps we should ask, who will de-benefit it or being penalized by it as a result? Dont' force users to upgrade their browsers. Valid and thoughtful point, but we need to go back to #1 find out what the answer is, and #2 later if #1's answer is NO, using HTML5 elements now will not blocking assistive devices' users from accessing the contents. The same holds true that don't make users who have the latest advanced browsing devices being penalized by the concern we have for older browsing devices when these users can benefit from sites that are built on HTML5. If we can pass the two questions with green light, is it not a more viable choice to build sites on HTML5 now as the users with advanced browsers will benefit it? tee *** 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
In my view it depends on who you are and who is paying for the website development. If you are building a website for yourself, by all means spend as much time as you like learning about the new technologies and implementing them. However, if you are building a website for someone else, you should obtain their consent before spending more than is necessary to meet their needs. HTML4 and XHTML1.0 already meet most needs. At first it will take developers longer to build sites using HTML5 because they are less familiar with it, and the client should not have to pay for that if they are deriving no benefit. If you think there may be some unquantifiable benefit in the future, ask the client if they want to pay more now in order to reap that benefit. I am all for the advancement of accessibility but I feel that a lot of developers want to use these new technologies because they are cool 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.x 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 steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk x-msg://129/steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk 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 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate that they do. So what exactly is the benefit? So we don't progress but wait for the screen readers be ready so that we can all merrily hold hands marching forward? I am not sure this type of skepticism does any good to accessibility as a whole-I see it does more harm especially the majority of web community do not think building accessible site a de facto. It probably does more damage coming from well-recognized and respectable accessibility practitioners. How about advice such as if the site needs to be compliant with DDA law, or if the majority users are of assistive devices, think carefully weight over all the pros and crons before jumping on HTML5 wagon? There! I am listening. tee *** 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
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 and floats and b)XHTML were years ago. It's only by becoming familiar with 'changes' that one can decide for oneself if there are advantages (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 is paying for the website development. If you are building a website for yourself, by all means spend as much time as you like learning about the new technologies and implementing them. However, if you are building a website for someone else, you should obtain their consent before spending more than is necessary to meet their needs. HTML4 and XHTML1.0 already meet most needs. At first it will take developers longer to build sites using HTML5 because they are less familiar with it, and the client should not have to pay for that if they are deriving no benefit. If you think there may be some unquantifiable benefit in the future, ask the client if they want to pay more now in order to reap that benefit. I am all for the advancement of accessibility but I feel that a lot of developers want to use these new technologies because they are cool and interesting, not because they provide better value for their clients. Steve *** 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
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 compatibility testing (Netscape 6, IE6, Opera 6 etc) and it was disastrous. The site eventually launched months late, over budget and it still looked awful in some major browsers. It was years too early to try anything like that, and they could see that from the alpha test results but they ploughed on. Around the same time, everyone including us started to move to using XHTML. In recent years we all stopped because it was mostly pointless, especially since you cannot serve it with the correct MIME type. These days a lot of us have gone back to HTML4 Strict. Why did we use XHTML? Because it was cool and everyone else was doing so, not because 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 that always the case? The HTML5 scenario is becoming de rigueur now, just as a) tables vs divs and floats and b)XHTML were years ago. It's only by becoming familiar with 'changes' that one can decide for oneself if there are advantages (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 is paying for the website development. If you are building a website for yourself, by all means spend as much time as you like learning about the new technologies and implementing them. However, if you are building a website for someone else, you should obtain their consent before spending more than is necessary to meet their needs. HTML4 and XHTML1.0 already meet most needs. At first it will take developers longer to build sites using HTML5 because they are less familiar with it, and the client should not have to pay for that if they are deriving no benefit. If you think there may be some unquantifiable benefit in the future, ask the client if they want to pay more now in order to reap that benefit. I am all for the advancement of accessibility but I feel that a lot of developers want to use these new technologies because they are cool and interesting, not because they provide better value for their clients. Steve *** 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
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 will not use this new technics now, then it wil be hard for browser vendors, web services and device makers to develop them futher. Of course that's all depend on type of site and conditions of work. 2011/1/27 Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk 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 compatibility testing (Netscape 6, IE6, Opera 6 etc) and it was disastrous. The site eventually launched months late, over budget and it still looked awful in some major browsers. It was years too early to try anything like that, and they could see that from the alpha test results but they ploughed on. Around the same time, everyone including us started to move to using XHTML. In recent years we all stopped because it was mostly pointless, especially since you cannot serve it with the correct MIME type. These days a lot of us have gone back to HTML4 Strict. Why did we use XHTML? Because it was cool and everyone else was doing so, not because 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 that always the case? The HTML5 scenario is becoming* de rigueur* now, just as a) tables vs divs and floats and b)XHTML were years ago. It's only by becoming familiar with 'changes' that one can decide for oneself if there are advantages (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 is paying for the website development. If you are building a website for yourself, by all means spend as much time as you like learning about the new technologies and implementing them. However, if you are building a website for someone else, you should obtain their consent before spending more than is necessary to meet their needs. HTML4 and XHTML1.0 already meet most needs. At first it will take developers longer to build sites using HTML5 because they are less familiar with it, and the client should not have to pay for that if they are deriving no benefit. If you think there may be some unquantifiable benefit in the future, ask the client if they want to pay more now in order to reap that benefit. I am all for the advancement of accessibility but I feel that a lot of developers want to use these new technologies because they are cool and interesting, not because they provide better value for their clients. Steve *** 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 *** *** 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
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 put aside your personal preferences and broader goals (such as 'improving the web' or 'forcing users to upgrade their browsers') and base it on what's most appropriate for your client. Steve From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Savl Ekk Sent: 27 January 2011 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 will not use this new technics now, then it wil be hard for browser vendors, web services and device makers to develop them futher. Of course that's all depend on type of site and conditions of work. 2011/1/27 Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk 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 compatibility testing (Netscape 6, IE6, Opera 6 etc) and it was disastrous. The site eventually launched months late, over budget and it still looked awful in some major browsers. It was years too early to try anything like that, and they could see that from the alpha test results but they ploughed on. Around the same time, everyone including us started to move to using XHTML. In recent years we all stopped because it was mostly pointless, especially since you cannot serve it with the correct MIME type. These days a lot of us have gone back to HTML4 Strict. Why did we use XHTML? Because it was cool and everyone else was doing so, not because 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 that always the case? The HTML5 scenario is becoming de rigueur now, just as a) tables vs divs and floats and b)XHTML were years ago. It's only by becoming familiar with 'changes' that one can decide for oneself if there are advantages (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 is paying for the website development. If you are building a website for yourself, by all means spend as much time as you like learning about the new technologies and implementing them. However, if you are building a website for someone else, you should obtain their consent before spending more than is necessary to meet their needs. HTML4 and XHTML1.0 already meet most needs. At first it will take developers longer to build sites using HTML5 because they are less familiar with it, and the client should not have to pay for that if they are deriving no benefit. If you think there may be some unquantifiable benefit in the future, ask the client if they want to pay more now in order to reap that benefit. I am all for the advancement of accessibility but I feel that a lot of developers want to use these new technologies because they are cool and interesting, not because they provide better value for their clients. Steve *** 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 *** *** 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 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 Mason *** 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 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 put aside your personal preferences and broader goals (such as 'improving the web' or 'forcing users to upgrade their browsers') and base it on what's most appropriate for your client. Agreed. But I don't see a conflict with HTML5 here. Over half your client's audience likely has a browser that has excellent support for established HTML5 features. I believe that many features of HTML5 save time and effort, leaving you with perhaps one or two non-conforming browsers for which you have to code and test JavaScript routines. I'm thinking of embedded video; required form fields; even fancy slider controls--things like that. HTML5 is indeed an ongoing project, far from complete. But there are many useful features that are well established and can save a lot of headaches. This is becoming even more true as the Web rapidly moves from an era of point-and-click to one of tap-and-swipe... -- Cordially, David *** 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 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 Explorer. However, the question is what they do with them. You cannot navigate via articles like you’d use the header navigation. But it’s not going to skip an article. The biggest problems with HTML5 accessibility are: repeated h1 headers, longdesc attribute being deprecated, captioning, and placing text within the canvas. At one time there was a conflict when combining ARIA landmarks with the new elements. But this is no longer a problem as the screen reader software was fixed. Ted On 1/25/11 12:34 AM, Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk 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 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate 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 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 *** *** 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
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. From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] 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 Explorer. However, the question is what they do with them. You cannot navigate via articles like you'd use the header navigation. But it's not going to skip an article. The biggest problems with HTML5 accessibility are: repeated h1 headers, longdesc attribute being deprecated, captioning, and placing text within the canvas. At one time there was a conflict when combining ARIA landmarks with the new elements. But this is no longer a problem as the screen reader software was fixed. Ted On 1/25/11 12:34 AM, Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk 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 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate 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 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 *** *** 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 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 steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk 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 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate that they do. So what exactly is the benefit? So we don't progress but wait for the screen readers be ready so that we can all merrily hold hands marching forward? I am not sure this type of skepticism does any good to accessibility as a whole-I see it does more harm especially the majority of web community do not think building accessible site a de facto. It probably does more damage coming from well-recognized and respectable accessibility practitioners. How about advice such as if the site needs to be compliant with DDA law, or if the majority users are of assistive devices, think carefully weight over all the pros and crons before jumping on HTML5 wagon? There! I am listening. tee *** 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
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 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 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 *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** winmail.dat
Re: [WSG] HTML5 v. HTML 4.x
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 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate that they do. So what exactly is the benefit? It saves having to rewrite the site when AT, SEs, etc do have significant support for them. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** 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
True, but the vast majority of the websites we work on have a life of less than 12 months, often much less - rebuilding annually or more often is the norm. My inclination is to wait and see what level of AT support develops before putting significant effort into using HTML5. Of course it's 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 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 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate that they do. So what exactly is the benefit? It saves having to rewrite the site when AT, SEs, etc do have significant support for them. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** 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
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 they do. So what exactly is the benefit? Hi. Benefit for now is in support of your html code. It's more easy for side developer work with your code, also. HTML5 is more readable than div soup in xhtml/html. And, on the other side — search engines begin support some sing if developer do. And vise versa. The more we use html5, the more search engines support it. Regards. *** 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 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 access to websites are currently able to make use of HTML5 markup, but I have not seen anything to indicate that they do. So what exactly is the benefit? It saves having to rewrite the site when AT, SEs, etc do have significant support for them. How about the new assistive devices such as iPhone and iPad that have become quite trendy for blind people? Apple, FWIK, actively promoting HTML5. As for SEO, I don't have any data to back it up, but based on a few sites I built on HTML5 using HTML5 elements, the SEO seems very good from google search. I can publish an article, and within 1 minute it shows up in google search, in the first result page; perhaps one of the reason is that my blog has gained some momentum in terms of SEO, but I do vividly remember it used to take much longer, even if I do the search with combination of company or domain name in it for that specific article, it never show up in the first page when the site was on XHTML. I suspect Google and Bing must be adding HTML5 into their search algorithm but they just don't acknowledge it. tee *** 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
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 they do. So what exactly is the benefit? As David said, it saves you from having to rewrite stuff later. But did you check the links I posted? They show that there are things that work *today* already. -- 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 *** *** 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 ***
[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] 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 ***
