Comments on: HTML 5: common practice vs. good practice http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/ 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: A`ja http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-3953 A`ja Sat, 05 May 2007 12:16:48 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/#comment-3953 Hmm...forgot about EMBED. Without having read the reasoning for allowing EMBED in HTML5-compliant documents (even if only allowed when wrapped within a FIGURE element), I have to say I'd tend to agree with you on this one. Of course UA's should still support it. FWIW, note that the FONT element exception for documents created by WSIWYG editors doesn't allow most of the old attributes...only the STYLE attribute. Hmm…forgot about EMBED. Without having read the reasoning for allowing EMBED in HTML5-compliant documents (even if only allowed when wrapped within a FIGURE element), I have to say I’d tend to agree with you on this one. Of course UA’s should still support it.

FWIW, note that the FONT element exception for documents created by WSIWYG editors doesn’t allow most of the old attributes…only the STYLE attribute.

Posted using Mozilla Firefox 3.0a on Windows.

]]> By: A`ja http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-3952 A`ja Sat, 05 May 2007 11:31:36 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/#comment-3952 What I think a lot of folks apparently aren't understanding about HTML5 is that it's: A) Describing what an HTM5 conformant User Agent must be able to do, which is render HTML5-conformant documents, and also describe how the UA should handle legacy content. B) Describe what an HTML5 conformant DOCUMENT is. Try actually sending some of your W3C-Validated docs through the <a href="http://hsivonen.iki.fi/validator/html5/">X(HTML5) Conformance Checker</a> and you'll find it's actually a lot stricter than you might expect. Just because an HTML5 UA must support tag soup and deprecated elements (or 95+% of the existing web would be "broken"), that doesn't mean that these things are going to be allowed in HTML5-conforming DOCUMENTS. AFAIK, the only currently deprecated element allowed in an HTML5-conformant document is MENU. HTML5 UA's on the other hand must be able to render ALL deprecated elements. Seriously, how many of you would use a browser that wouldn't render deprecated elements or tag soup (i.e the vast majority of existing documents on the web)? A large portion of the HTML5 WAI spec is devoted to standardizing how a User Agent calling itself HTML5-conformant must handle these existing documents...something that hasn't really ever been done before in an HTML spec. Unfortunately, it's a bit difficult when reading the WA1 spec to understand at first what refers to HTML5-conformant documents and what refers to HTML5-conformant User Agents. I know it's taken me multiple readings and asking several questions on the whatwg IRC channel for it to sink in. What I think a lot of folks apparently aren’t understanding about HTML5 is that it’s:

A) Describing what an HTM5 conformant User Agent must be able to do, which is render HTML5-conformant documents, and also describe how the UA should handle legacy content.

B) Describe what an HTML5 conformant DOCUMENT is. Try actually sending some of your W3C-Validated docs through the X(HTML5) Conformance Checker and you’ll find it’s actually a lot stricter than you might expect.

Just because an HTML5 UA must support tag soup and deprecated elements (or 95+% of the existing web would be “broken”), that doesn’t mean that these things are going to be allowed in HTML5-conforming DOCUMENTS.

AFAIK, the only currently deprecated element allowed in an HTML5-conformant document is MENU. HTML5 UA’s on the other hand must be able to render ALL deprecated elements.

Seriously, how many of you would use a browser that wouldn’t render deprecated elements or tag soup (i.e the vast majority of existing documents on the web)?

A large portion of the HTML5 WAI spec is devoted to standardizing how a User Agent calling itself HTML5-conformant must handle these existing documents…something that hasn’t really ever been done before in an HTML spec.

Unfortunately, it’s a bit difficult when reading the WA1 spec to understand at first what refers to HTML5-conformant documents and what refers to HTML5-conformant User Agents.

I know it’s taken me multiple readings and asking several questions on the whatwg IRC channel for it to sink in.

Posted using Mozilla Firefox 3.0a on Windows.

]]> By: Roger Johansson http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-3951 Roger Johansson Sat, 05 May 2007 07:03:05 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/#comment-3951 Well said, I fully agree. I don't understand why so many seem so opposed to making a clear distinction between what developers may use and what browsers should understand. Well said, I fully agree. I don’t understand why so many seem so opposed to making a clear distinction between what developers may use and what browsers should understand.

Posted using Safari 419.3 on Macintosh.

]]> By: Jake Archibald http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-3950 Jake Archibald Fri, 04 May 2007 09:09:45 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/#comment-3950 The existence of deprecated tags such as font & embed does rather feel like legalising theft to reduce crime rates. Personally, I think backwards compatibility needs broken. When something's bent into shape to serve a different purpose (such as the semantic change to existing elements) it isn't as effective as a start-from-scratch solution. HTML needs to lose some legacy. The existence of deprecated tags such as font & embed does rather feel like legalising theft to reduce crime rates.

Personally, I think backwards compatibility needs broken. When something’s bent into shape to serve a different purpose (such as the semantic change to existing elements) it isn’t as effective as a start-from-scratch solution.

HTML needs to lose some legacy.

Posted using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows.

]]> By: Robin http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/comment-page-1/#comment-3949 Robin Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:53:20 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/04/29/html-5-common-practice-vs-good-practice/#comment-3949 I agree, but I'm not sure what can be done about this now. Seems like all the major players think this is the way forwards... I agree, but I’m not sure what can be done about this now. Seems like all the major players think this is the way forwards…

Posted using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows.

]]>