Comments on: The whimzical world of HTML 5 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/ Updates on the march of progress. A weblog about web design, standards, web browsers, and the overall health of the Web. Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:45:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jacques Distler http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/comment-page-1/#comment-3961 Jacques Distler Sat, 26 May 2007 04:43:01 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/#comment-3961 I don't know why you are so enamoured of DTDs. DTD-based validators <a href="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001206.html">suck</a>. I don’t know why you are so enamoured of DTDs. DTD-based validators suck.

Posted using SeaMonkey/Mozilla Suite 1.5a on Macintosh.

]]> By: greg http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/comment-page-1/#comment-3957 greg Tue, 22 May 2007 20:20:06 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/#comment-3957 wait, so that Im clear - requiring bug mode means that in order to make a browser 10 years from now, you will need include every version of every browser's rendering engine from the last decade? what a horrible idea. FWIW - canvas doesn't sound like a bad idea. semantics - "visual stuff goes here." Better than a semantically vacuous div. wait, so that Im clear – requiring bug mode means that in order to make a browser 10 years from now, you will need include every version of every browser’s rendering engine from the last decade?

what a horrible idea.

FWIW – canvas doesn’t sound like a bad idea. semantics – “visual stuff goes here.” Better than a semantically vacuous div.

Posted using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows.

]]> By: kalikiana http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/comment-page-1/#comment-3954 kalikiana Sat, 05 May 2007 21:48:48 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/#comment-3954 > Not only does Ian Hickson want to omit a DTD, but he doesn’t seem to think that a version indicator is even necessary. Wow. I heard and read bad things about HTML5 before. I know that not everybody likes XHTML. But now I can hardly believe any more that this is coming from the W3C Group. They really ought to go order an internet connection. > Not only does Ian Hickson want to omit a DTD, but he doesn’t seem to think that a version indicator is even necessary.

Wow. I heard and read bad things about HTML5 before. I know that not everybody likes XHTML. But now I can hardly believe any more that this is coming from the W3C Group. They really ought to go order an internet connection.

Posted using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Linux.

]]> By: mpt http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/comment-page-1/#comment-3948 mpt Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:20:46 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/#comment-3948 * Yes, bugmode is a terrible idea, because it would make writing a new useful Web browser in 2030 prohibitively difficult. It's an anticompetitive move. * It's <em>already</em> impossible for an SGML parser to parse HTML4 as used in the real world, because the mass of humans who author the Web (and the computer programs written by those humans) will never be that perfect. The main change in HTML5 is the level of honesty. * A DTD can represent only a small fraction of HTML5's conformance requirements. The judgement is that misleading authors, by providing DTD-based "validation" that tests only a small fraction of the requirements, does more harm than good. * Backward compatibility is vital for the same reason bugmode is a bad idea: to make it feasible for programmers to write new useful Web browsers in decades to come. Making obsolete elements non-conforming does not contradict this goal: the specification will continue to describe how to render those things that are no longer conforming, as long as a non-trivial number of Web pages use them. * As far as I know, <code>canvas</code> and <code>embed</code> both exist because browser vendors find it extremely difficult to implement generalized behavior (which is why <code>object</code> is so patchily implemented, for example). * The argument for <code>ping</code> is pretty much exactly what you stated: that people who care will be able to disable it in their browser, whereas it's difficult or impossible to do the same with server-side tracking. I disagree on the grounds that browsers won't let you do this because the UI would be ridiculous. ("Let Web sites track which links you click on: (*) Always ( ) Sometimes") * Yes, bugmode is a terrible idea, because it would make writing a new useful Web browser in 2030 prohibitively difficult. It’s an anticompetitive move.

* It’s already impossible for an SGML parser to parse HTML4 as used in the real world, because the mass of humans who author the Web (and the computer programs written by those humans) will never be that perfect. The main change in HTML5 is the level of honesty.

* A DTD can represent only a small fraction of HTML5’s conformance requirements. The judgement is that misleading authors, by providing DTD-based “validation” that tests only a small fraction of the requirements, does more harm than good.

* Backward compatibility is vital for the same reason bugmode is a bad idea: to make it feasible for programmers to write new useful Web browsers in decades to come. Making obsolete elements non-conforming does not contradict this goal: the specification will continue to describe how to render those things that are no longer conforming, as long as a non-trivial number of Web pages use them.

* As far as I know, canvas and embed both exist because browser vendors find it extremely difficult to implement generalized behavior (which is why object is so patchily implemented, for example).

* The argument for ping is pretty much exactly what you stated: that people who care will be able to disable it in their browser, whereas it’s difficult or impossible to do the same with server-side tracking. I disagree on the grounds that browsers won’t let you do this because the UI would be ridiculous. (”Let Web sites track which links you click on: (*) Always ( ) Sometimes”)

Posted using Safari 312.6 on Macintosh.

]]> By: Chris Wilson http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/comment-page-1/#comment-3947 Chris Wilson Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:38:34 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/23/the-whimzical-world-of-html-5/#comment-3947 David, you missed the bit where they're considering putting the marquee element in HTML5. :) David, you missed the bit where they’re considering putting the marquee element in HTML5. :)

Posted using Internet Explorer (Windows) 7.0 on Windows.

]]>