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
>
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
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
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 technolo
-
> *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 alway
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
e 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 v
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
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" wrote:
>
dsgroup.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 othe
entz
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 w
> 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
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 programmat
> 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 indi
x27;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
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 HT
o 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
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 , etc., but
> does this really increase t
On 25/01/2011 12:34 PM, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
> One word : semantics.
>
Assuming authors use the element in the same way, and assuming the
element has only one semantic meaning possible.
--
Andrew Cunningham
Senior Project Manager, Research and Development
Vicnet
State Library of Victori
Hi Grant
As html 5 new tag are not supported to the IE7 and older version as well. For
your query regard the use of I preferred to use
instead of the tag.
tag has his own value for the margin… and this will difficult to maintain
the same space in IE and firefox.
Regards
Biren
> 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
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
>> Now, if you use the new code element instead, that tells the browser it is
>> code.
>
> There's a new code element? How does it differ from the old one?
Without using additional attri
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Christian Snodgrass wrote:
One word : semantics.
It all has to do with what the tags mean to the computer. For example, you
can write to specify that the markup in that div is code
and should be displayed as such. However, to the browser, the means nothing
more than . They
Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has
introduced new semantic elements such as , etc., but
does this really increase the expressive power of the markup? Can't
the same thing be achieved in HTML 4.x using classes (e.g. class="header">)?
I am reluctant to move to
One word : semantics.
It all has to do with what the tags mean to the computer. For example, you
can write to specify that the markup in that div is code
and should be displayed as such. However, to the browser, the means nothing
more than . They're both just divs.
Now, if you use the new code e
On 25 January 2011 09:44, wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has
> introduced new semantic elements such as , etc., but does
> this really increase the expressive power of the markup?
>
In the long run, yes this increases the expressive power of
So called 'semantic classnames' are not semantic at all except in the
case of microformats. The whole point of semantic markup is that the
author and user agree on the terminology and the meaning, and that is
not the case with semantic classnames no matter how obvious they may
seem to you.
Microfo
> I use HTML5 as my doctype, but I don't use the new tags. It's wise to be very
> concerned about backwards compatibility.
> Are they more semantic - I suppose. If IE doesn't understand the new tags I'd
> leave them be until another day.
Hi.
Is the backwards compatibility really a problem?
Wha
>
> Could someone please clarify this for me. I realise that HTML5 has introduced
> new semantic elements such as , etc., but does this really
> increase the expressive power of the markup? Can't the same thing be achieved
> in HTML 4.x using classes (e.g. )?
>
> I am reluctant to move to H
>? 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 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/
31 matches
Mail list logo
