What is Digg?66 Comments
- JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+50What the hell? No XHTML? Attributes with no values and values without quotes is so 1996.
- justinjacobs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47Leave that to CSS
- mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27@rowanjl:
There can't be xHTML5 without xHTML 2.0 being released. This group is undermining the W3C, and aren't really introducing anything new (that we can't do with CSS). Face it HTML is dead, xHTML is the future. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22@JamesWilson
I totally agree. For me, valid XHTML is a higher priority than the background color of input boxes.
Most of the stuff on this page can be done with valid CSS. - essjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18The true Web 2.0 crowd (i.e. not the people who jumped on the bandwagon by just taking the cosmetic features, rounded corners, gradients, etc) are into content and style separation. The next version of CSS supports rounded corners and Mozilla based browsers already have support using the moz-border-radius attribute.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Screw the WWW! Go gopher go!!
- JeremyBanks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17OK, this is lame. HTML is not the future, XHTML is. Also, they make it sound as though with this code you can do away with server-side validation. Yes, because it's so hard for people to get around these, right? No, not really. Not at all.
The CSS pisses me off. "element:required"? Why not just use "element[required]", which is valid CSS and would already work if required were a valid element. We don't need a pseudo-class, CSS can check for the existence of attributes already. - AceTracer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Um yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'd rather use XHTML and CSS, with XForms if necessary.
- Spatulas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It seems to me that XForms is a much nicer implementation of this... :)
- pixelmixer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9rounded corners are just a fad... html shouldnt strictly adopt rounded corners. like the guy said above, leave it to css.
- everling, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"No XHTML?" - JamesWilson
XHTML as it is now, is pure hype. Most XHTML sites we have now won't survive the "Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml" test.
"Attributes with no values and values without quotes is so 1996." - JamesWilson
Attirbutes without values or unquoted values are acceptable as long as they're unambiguous. XML is just being pedantic.
"Most of the stuff on this page can be done with valid CSS." - iamcitizen
Did you just glance through or did you actually RTA? The stuff that CSS could do was done with CSS in HTML5. The HTML5 writers are well aware of the benefits of content/presentation separation.
"Face it HTML is dead, xHTML is the future." - mtekk
Maybe. But if you're insisting that XHTML is the _now_, then you're in a state of denial or you're delibrately ignoring IE7.
IE7 still can't render true XHTML pages because IE7 doesn't recognise "Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml". Because of that, your XHTML would be handled by the HTML renderer. In other words, most of you have yet to experience a real XHTML engine at work.
"there is a good reason that this kind of functionality is done with js, it's about separation of layers of content, style, and functionality." - gameguy43
Then you, as a commenter, have inaccurately analysed the contents of the article.
How are you going to tell your JavaScript that you want it to validate the form control as an e-mail field? Abusing the "class" attribute by adding "e-mail" into it? Adding an ID to the form control and explicitly telling your JS to look out for it? How is that better then adding the "email" and "url" values to the "type" attribute?
In fact, I'd say the HTML5 provides more semantics than XHTML1.1's ambiguous 'type="text"'. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@razster
Ah, MS. Always a few years behind... - Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This page starts out by implying that XHTML and XHTML2 don't exist. Then it goes on to show examples of "web forms 2" using shortcut filled, unbalanced HTML4 style markup.
Tag soup is evil. Sure they say there's a version of HTML5 that resembles valid XML (XHTML5), but it sure seems like they don't want anyone to use it.
XForms, 'nuff said: http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/ - Electronical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, why don't you send your ideas on how to improve HTML (or XHTML) to the workgroup. I remember they were asking for opinions some time ago.
The main problem with these new improvements is that the largest web browser out there in the real world won't implement any new things. I'm still waiting for better CSS support, but they just seem to have no interest in improving their product... - fredclown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually the article says don't forget to do server side validation.
- slantyeyed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5i thought HTML 5 was supposed to be XHTML 1.0?
- cesclaveria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the colors were chosen by the guy who did the form, check the source and you'll see you can choose the colors you want. and it uses your theme icons, so the 'dodgy' icons were your choice.
- everling, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I wouldn't abandon the spec because of Microsoft. I have written XHTML sites, ones that even switches the Content-Type HTTP header and content depending on the browser just to fully comply with the spec. But I have found that there wasn't any real tangible benefit - other than adding my XHTML prowess to my CV.
Other than SVG and MathML support, which you have to discard in order to send as text/html and simplify your production flow and user requirements, is there any real benefit that you can name? JavaScript? CSS? If you think that IE supports JS and CSS better in "XHTML", than you are mistaken. It's probably because you're sending a proper doctype that makes IE switch to standards compliant rendering mode, which you could do the same with a correct HTML doctype. Content/presentation separation? You can do the same with HTML. In fact, you are doing so because IE renders your XHTML as HTML. Just what are the benefits?
Relevant links:
http://annevankesteren.nl/2006/06/html-level
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/01/14/thought_experiment - fredclown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This guy has already implemented the web forms 2.0 repetition model through JavaScript. Supports all the major browsers and makes repetition blocks a since to do ... no JavaScript knowledge necessary.
http://code.google.com/p/repetitionmodel/ - everling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not Opera only. Only Microsoft had said negatively about them implementing it in IE. And if my memory hadn't failed me, Mozilla is interested.
- bede, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Oh great more divergence
- RyanJones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3HTML 5 is nothing to do with the W3C it is therefore nothing to do with any of the old XHTML specs (the same for the XHTML 5 spec). they are more correctly called "web-apps" and the topic dealt with here is called "web forms 2.0"
Visit http://www.whatwg.org/ for more information :) - lunchbox170, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yeah HTML is no longer the standard, W3C wants everything XHTML 1.0 strict. Which for all you stupid people who don't know anything, XHTML is basicly HTML only XHTML is more strict, meaning your code actually has to be written properly, and just a cluttered mess of *****.
CSS all the way!
Do browsers even support this made up HTML 5? - grow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We have a while before we can start using pure xhtml, should really just stick with html 4.01 strict.
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
As for the validation part: I don't think you want important things like this happening on the users machine. You will *always* need to go server side anyway. If it's happening on the user's machine, it can be messed with much more easily. This is as silly as using Java Script for it. Isn't the type attribute already in use?
Autofocus? This is really annoying. I expect to type where I am typing until I change the focus myself. I don't want to have to click back to the address bar if I accidentally go to the wrong address.
Stick with the standards please! - richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5HTML 5? Please tell me this is a joke...
- MVP6100, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Interesting but I still like XHTML 1.1 the best information on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML
- pornel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good luck with XForms until 2025...
Anyway, these extensions are designed with XForms migration in mind. Read the specs - in future it can be built on top of XForms. - LawrenceDudley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3For simple forms, it's easy. If there's no harm in having wrong data (a newsletter comes to mind), it doesn't matter either way if they try and get round validation. Besides, it makes client-side validation much easier, as it requires no scripting
- uzytkownik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I prefere XForms (MVC Pattern).
HTML > 4 IMHO have no sense since there are XHTML. - pornel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not even IE nor Google supports XHTML -- they only appear to do so, because websites send XHTML written according to Appendix C guidelines and send it as text/html, not application/xhtml+xml, but that disables all the features that are new to XHTML!
- angulion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too bad it probably will take a decade before IE supports rounded corners in a standard way...
- m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5This article is a joke.
Buried. - pornel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WebForms2 (AKA HTML5) works in XHTML as well, if you stick to the XML syntax rules (just write autofocus="autofocus", etc.)
It isn't W3C standard yet, but it has been offically submitted to W3C and Tim Berners-Lee has recognized as the right direction. - pornel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WebForms 2 is designed to gracefull degrade in all current browsres. It can be fully implemented using JS/DOM+CSS in browsers that don't have native WF2 support.
- FaT32, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is neat test of HTML 5 forms: http://olav.dk/wf2/demo/
Works in Opera 9 (native support) and Internet Explorer (JavaScript)
Do not digg this site down, please! Keep it alive! - angulion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what is the point of having wf2, if you in practice anyways need the old validation cruft too?
- rebz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I also agree, the markup in this page was awful, AWFUL. I took a peek at the code before I started reading and I couldn't even concentrate on the article. Sure some of the first few are nifty ideas, but they should have been presented in a manner that was valid markup, and as many said, a good amount of this can easily be accomplished with CSS.
- gameguy43, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6i think i just threw up in my mouth a little bit. the simple neglect to add quotes... not to mention, as james pointed out, all attributes musthave values. there is a good reason that this kind of functionality is done with js, it's about separation of layers of content, style, and functionality. the author of this article showed not only a lack of support for semantics, but perhaps even a complete ignorance of the presence of w3c regulations. marked as INACCURATE.
- cwahlers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doesn't work in IE7.
- Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thanks for clearing that up. And yaboo-sucks to the Opera fanbois for digging me down.
- joshuakuhn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"If you were using Internet Explorer 6 on a Windows machine or Opera 9, this demo would actually work!"
So use a crappy browser to see a crappy attempt at a new standard? Pass... - snuggles2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> "What if people have JavaScript disabled or their browser doesn't support it? You should always have a server-side backup"
Yes, you should -- I mean that markup with the CLASS attribute + some scripting is sufficient to do simple *client-side* form validation without needing those HTML-5 extensions. - Agret, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Only Opera supports it, bring on the "Opera Only" sites a la IE
- everling, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"The CSS pisses me off." - JeremyBanks
You're just looking for reasons to deride the spec. You could just ignore it, as I will, and just use element[required].
"Also, they make it sound as though with this code you can do away with server-side validation." - JeremyBanks
No. All they did was to make client-side validation a lot simpler to be used by any developer, which would "save your user a few round trips".
"The main problem with these new improvements is that the largest web browser out there in the real world won't implement any new things."
Without the existence of Firefox, would you be able to say that Microsoft would have updated their IE? Keep in mind that the IE team was disbanded, only to be put together again to defend against the threat of looking ancient. So to make Microsoft keep their browser up-to-date the other browsers needs to stay ahead. - pezholio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"[input type="email required" /] + a little Javascript will do the kind of form validation they are describing."
What if people have JavaScript disabled or their browser doesn't support it? You should always have a server-side backup - smartssa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This is horrible. It's a mess and I personally can't believe that it's on Opera's dev site.
- linuxeventually, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Screenshots? I'm too lazy to download Opera just to see this.
- matrixhax0r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This isn't very exciting seeing how standard forms will be replaced with XForms...
- snuggles2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1> "How are you going to tell your JavaScript that you want it to validate the form control as an e-mail field? Abusing the 'class' attribute by adding 'e-mail' into it?"
Yes. The CLASS attribute "assigns a class name or set of class names to an [HTML] element". It does not stand for "CSS class" and is not necessarily related to CSS.
+ a little Javascript will do the kind of form validation they are describing. - acidhash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"HTML hasn't really been updated" erm.
W3C said HTML 4.01 is the last HTML version. From here on out, it's XHTML. Which is, like, the same thing, but with X on the front of it. So that makes it lots better. Anyway, noobs, these guys obviously haven't heard of CSS.
WTF this is retarded. "LET's 41ll g0 make up sum HTMLs just for ***** n giggl3s!111!" I can make a blog post making up HTML attributes I think we should have, but that doesn't mean everyone's going to come around and adopt them. What a total noob. -
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is