----- Original Message -----
From: "Keryx Web" <webmas...@keryx.se>
To: <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] More on understanding html5
2010-01-05 13:59, designer skrev:
> I am getting a bit bogged down with this new stuff!
> I used <figure> in this case:
<figure> is still being discussed and no real decision has benn made. The
proposal to use dt/dd in fugure and details seem to have been shot down
and new elements for captioning these are being discussed.
Then again, <details> and or <figure> might be totally scrapped.
There are other parts of HTML5 that have reached a higher level of
maturity. One should probably start using them.
BTW. the validator does not change with every spec change. For issues like
this the best resource to consult is probably HTML5 doctor or the WHAT WG
help list. (The help list, not the main discussion list.)
*******************************************************************
Hi Lars,
Yes, I am starting to realise that you are right. So many of the features of
html5 have little or no browser support and the syntax changes often. The
standard few 'safe' elements seem to be
<section>
<header>
<footer>
<article>
<nav> and
<aside>
In my view these don't yet add anything worthwhile to my pages, except
perhaps better code readability, and this is/can be countered by excessive
verbosity. My own (somewhat clumsy) efforts can be seen at:
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk - here, (on the portfolio page) I have used
<figure> with a floated image to present data as we used to do with tables,
but since I have used the <dt> and <dd> approach, it may be consigned to the
bin anytime soon.
html5 all seems a bit of a mess, at least at this time.
Bob
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************
