What is Digg?133 Comments
- jtrost, on 10/11/2007, -5/+127What's better than the new tags are these dropped tags:
frame
frameset
noframes - bonavistask8er, on 10/11/2007, -12/+91I hope they bring back the <blink> tag!!!
- bpapa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+67Cool, now we just have to wait a few years for all browsers to implement it, and then another 2 or 3 until people start paying attention and using the new tags and attributes. :(
- Seidoger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+65We all loved the blink tag in conjunction with that blood dripping separator, that spinning email animated gif and that "in construction" icon! Good times for your eyes.
- jmreid, on 10/11/2007, -2/+61He didn't say he didn't enjoy it.
- Seidoger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+46>The 'irrelevant' attribute indicates that an element is not yet, or is no longer, relevant.
Sweet! Now that can be the top level tag of MySpace and many other sites.
Mwhaha! - diegoferreyra, on 10/11/2007, -2/+48I like it that it is more strict. And you gotta love tthe new tags!
- TenebrousX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+39Actually, there is a CSS property for blink:
element {
text-decoration: blink;
} - toxicityj, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39"HTML5 is so strict that it steps on my balls while wearing high heels"
God forbid web standards be strict. - altjeringa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+34My bet is the you'll see full support for HTML5 and XHTML 5 in Firefox, Safari, KHTML, and Opera long before the W3C every actually ratifies the spec.
- bpapa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+29Well, XHTML is just a reformulation of HTML using XML syntax.
HTML 5 actually has a bunch of cool new tags that add better semantic meaning to documents. XHTML 5 would be it's XML counterpart. - bpapa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Sure, but what about IE? As much as we hate to admit it that's when people will start to actually take note.
And although I didn't read the list over very thoroughly, these new tags (which are great, bringing a lot of rich semantic meaning to a page) are for the most part going to be looked at with a "huh?" from most web developers. The guys worth their salt will be excited to use the new tags, but most of the poorly skilled drek will just continue to use their tables or their divs. - kingfoot, on 10/11/2007, -12/+33The difference is 1...
- LordofShadows, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24Browsers need to inform users that the webpage they're on is in quirks mode to help motivate the 99% of the "web developers" out there still writing netscape html.
- Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15"and XML (XHTML5)"
Ugh, with XHTML 2 already in development too (with its own set of new tags and guidelines), way to cause confusion there... - wakkow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Dropped tag - "font, although it is allowed when inserted by WYSIWYG editor."
Why allow it for editors? - bpapa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Frames have been "dead" for a long time for a number of reasons. Of course, a number of websites still use them - either OLLLLD sites or those made by people who make poor design decisions.
You don't have to worry though. It's not like browsers will support only HTML 5 and stop with the previous versions. So all of the old Frame-based sites will continue to work (as poorly as they always have. :P) - altjeringa, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Given the Browser vendors wrote the spec everybody but IE will probably support it in the next version of their browser. Then about a year later it will become an official Specification. Once that happens IE will complain that it was inadequate and so they developed their own technologies which are incompatible.
- Slapo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10While I do agree that xhtml should be replacing html, you might want to read these parts:
"The HTML5 draft reflects an effort, started in 2004, to study contemporary HTML implementations and deployed content. The draft:
1. Defines a single language called HTML 5 which can be written in HTML (HTML5) and XML (XHTML5).
2. Defines detailed processing models to foster interoperable implementations.
3. Improves markup for documents.
4. Introduces markup and APIs for emerging idioms, such as web applications. "
and
"The other syntax that can be used for HTML5 is called XHTML5. This syntax is compatible with XML and correct XHTML1 documents. Documents using this syntax need to be served with an XML MIME type and elements need to be put in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace following the rules set forth by the XML specification."
So it might not be quite a bad thing. - gsnedders, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Given that Chris Wilson, the platform architect of IE, is chair of the W3C HTML WG, and has said several times he will implement it, that's just FUD.
- jerbaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Great, they're going to implement the "ping" attribute to anchors. Now Web pages can intentionally or unintentionally inform an arbitrarily long list of external URL's just which link you are clicking without your knowledge. Imagine the possibilities of using the "ping" attribute along with query strings to pass information from a compromised Web page. You think phishing scams are bad now??? I can think of a million reasons why this shouldn't be implemented and only one reason why it would be (Google has their hand in this one).
- Dracos, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11IE doesn't fully support anything, not even HTML 1.0. Saying IE will support any new spec within 5 years is highly optimistic.
- coldskool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Im not making a case for framesets... only time I use them is when Im asked... but still, I dont see the point in dropping them, its just another option right?
- BladeMelbourne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Give me a <br />
- mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I agree, they should push HTML5 to be a proper "XHTML5" spec as well. Beating people up to properly close tags is a small thing and promotes good coding. The main problem with XHTML is that one certain older browser refuses to properly handle the XML type for a page in XHTML. The better browsers all work fine. What you gain is the ability to mix and match other types of markup... for instance the XHTML + SVG + MATHML combo is really neat because you can put scriptable drawings and formulas right in the page... 100% pure text markup, no plugins or graphic gimicks!! but nobody uses it because one certian browser refuses to implement the XML data types properlyl
- chrislongridge, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9They are dropping frame and frameset because they are obsolete and have no place in modern web design.
- Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@jerbaker
You could always use absolute-positioned DIV elements and IFRAMES; they haven't dropped those. - tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7bpapa: Actually, I have a feeling they'll implement it quicker than you think. I don't think they'll ever drop the web ball again after realising their mistake the first time around. While I think they'll implement it fairly quick, though, I'm worried they won't implement it well enough for developers to actually make proper use of it.
MS have already started talking about IE8, so who knows. - coldskool, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10The article says they are dropping frame and frameset... huh? I rarely ever use frames but dont a lot of websites still use them?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8freddo, that is a horrible idea.
- altjeringa, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9@gsnedders
Given that everybody but IE was involved in creating the spec and a major public outcry had to be voiced before the w3c would even consider it, given Microsofts history of ignoring or subverting public standards and that even with it's "Great push for standards compliance" IE 7 is still the most incompliant piece of crap browser on the web, I'd dare say my statement holds. Please feel free point out some verifiable data that Microsoft has ever played well with others, adopted standards and you can say my statement are FUD all you like. But a representative of an organization which has on multiple occasions has said it would support what it then subverted, say thing it will support anything is quite meaningless. - JaYBrooks, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11was the blink and marquee tag real html? I think they were more of a feature of the particular browser.. Pretty worthless...
- cogent, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I see some of the tags being a little too vague. I would definitely use the "header","footer" , and "nav" tags but isn't "section" just another "div"?
But I absolutely love the new form type attributes. If the browser can do the error checking for dates and emails instead of my lazy ass. That would be awesome. - fLUx1337, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I'm more intrested in CSS3...
I want my damn multiple backgrounds per div NOW!!! Not in 3 yrs when ALL browsers use it...
Apple Safari has it, but theirs no point using it, because I would be writing extra code, just for 5% of web users...
Ah well.... - LordofShadows, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10And the obvious question freddo is why do you care what those values hold?
- bpapa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Actually just saying "div" is better and then having the alignment in a CSS file. Or, using a more semantic tag than "div", if possible.
- mhearne, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Whenever I see blinking text (or blinking flash, for that matter), I try to scroll it out of the way, even if it concerns a subject that I am interested in. It just gives me a headache, that's all.
I suppose that it was real code, but I think we'd have to call it "Marketing Language" rather than "Markup Language". - altjeringa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Think 508 compliance. Sometimes you want to make something bold for visual presentation but it's just cause it looks good not because it actually needs emphasis.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8By the time they finish writing the spec for HTML5 and browsers implement it, we'll all be retired.
/yawns - altjeringa, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6XHTML 2.0 is the next version of XHTML 1.1. It was developed by the W3C. XHTML 5 is the XML compliant version of HTML 5, it was developed by a group of people who believed the W3C had it's head up it's @$$ and then brought the the W3C for standardization. The names are confusing but that will probably be cleaned up before the Specifications are finalized.
- eleven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No they just changed how they are defined. The "works" part is / was really up a page's author.
- uzytkownik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What is the XHTML 5.0? I've heard about HTML 5.0 and XHTML 2.0. Did the naming is changed?
- Mearn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Wasn't the center tag depricated a while back?
- andr3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Check the author's site for more of his views relating to HTML5...
Anne's blog at: http://annevankesteren.nl/
(it's in the article, but just wanted to point it out in the open. it's a blog worth subscribing, if you haven't already)
Kudos to him for his work and for writing this up. - stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@ crazybrit You are exactly right about the IE thing and almost rendering this all worthless. The whole strict WC3 thing seems great to about 10% of the web world. The other 90% of users could care less and don't give a damn if you ask them to update their browsers etc. I just ran into this awhile ago deploying a completely new rebuild of a business to business website for a very large company. Boy did I pay the price for trying to force web standards and require people to update to at least IE7. You all would be amazed how many joe average users are on windows 95, win 98 using IE5, IE6. If we politely asked and even offered to assist people with updating some were very adamant about NOT wanting to upgrade and got very pissed off about it.
- kday, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@strictnein
What he is saying is that 99.999% of websites are served in text/html, and almost nobody uses the XML advantages in xhtml. Browsers like IE prevent developers from using xhtml served as application/xhtml+xml.
Check out this tag in Digg's source:
meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
So, yes, digg is using an xhtml dtd, BUT the content is being served in text/html.
Also, if you serve xhtml applications as xml, your page will break if there are any errors in the code. While this is probably a good thing overall, and promotes better coding, it takes more effort.
If you want to see what a website is like served in application/xhtml+xml, check out the Force Content-Type extension for Firefox. You'll see that websites with non-valid xhtml (most websites) simply won't render, and you will see an error.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3207 - braziland, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3LOL, you can tell this is a rough draft:
"...following new values which enable a bunch of new native controls people can use:"
I am happy that they are moving away from the current DIV hell and working towards building a true semantic structure for HTML documents. I can definitely see these tags improving the experience with screen readers. - stephdau, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The original requesting for consideration was delivered to the W3C signed by people from the Mozilla Foundation, Opera Software and Apple Inc.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0429.html
On the other hand, MS is on the board of the W3C WG, so they can;t be fighting it too hard:
http://blog.johnjosephbachir.org/2007/04/25/microsofts-involvement-in-the-html-5-working-group/ - jammnrose, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I can't wait for HTML5. The spec has so much stuff that will make my life easier. Bring on teh canvas.
- vh1`, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3`datalist` elements? easy combo boxes? yes!
"Likewise, the target attribute for a is no longer deprecated."
one of my biggest gripes
autofocus attributes. the HTML5 spec is wicked! -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is