|
Welcome
Guest
|
Register
| Login
|
|
|
| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Online | User List | Help |
Killersites.com Forum
Misc Forums
Web Design News
Thread: HTML 5.0 is a little nearer
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 12
|
|
| Author |
|
Wickham
Advanced Member UK Joined: Sep 17, 2007 Post Count: 590 Status: Offline |
Draft Recommendation 15 October 2008 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ asks for comments and this needs studying in detail:- HTML 5 A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML Editor's Draft 15 October 2008 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/ I just happened to Google HTML 5 just now as someone had asked for the differences between HTML and XHTML so I thought I had better see what was happening to HTML 5. Extracts:- There are various concrete syntaxes that can be used to transmit resources that use this abstract language, two of which are defined in this specification. The first such concrete syntax is "HTML5". This is the format recommended for most authors. It is compatible with all legacy Web browsers. If a document is transmitted with the MIME type text/html, then it will be processed as an "HTML5" document by Web browsers. The second concrete syntax uses XML, and is known as "XHTML5". When a document is transmitted with an XML MIME type, such as application/xhtml+xml, then it is processed by an XML processor by Web browsers, and treated as an "XHTML5" document. Authors are reminded that the processing for XML and HTML differs; in particular, even minor syntax errors will prevent an XML document from being rendered fully, whereas they would be ignored in the "HTML5" syntax. The first link I gave above has used 99% CPU on my XP pc twice; I think there's a lot being downloaded or something. I had to terminate IE (edit: but Firefox is OK). Extracts:- This specification is intended to replace XHTML 1.0 as the normative definition of the XML serialization of the HTML vocabulary. [XHTML10] While this specification updates the semantics and requirements of the vocabulary defined by XHTML Modularization 1.1 and used by XHTML 1.1, it does not attempt to provide a replacement for the modularization scheme defined and used by those (and other) specifications, and therefore cannot be considered a complete replacement for them. [XHTMLMOD] [XHTML11] Thus, authors and implementors who do not need such a modularization scheme can consider this specification a replacement for XHTML 1.x, but those who do need such a mechanism are encouraged to continue using the XHTML 1.1 line of specifications. ---------------------------------------- Code downloaded to my PC will be deleted in due course. WIN XP SP3; IE7, Firefox 3.0, Opera and Safari for Windows; screen resolution usually 1024x768. IE6 on W98 with 800*600. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 3 times, last edit by Wickham at Oct 15, 2008 11:09:19 AM] |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
Slowly the Reverend LSW sets up and mounts his soap box... <gleeful>I was right... I was right! See I told you doubters so! I was right! [jumping up and down  ]</gleeful>  [Clearing throat]... Aaaahhh yes, where was I? Oh yes, I never bought into that HTML5 OR XHTML5. They are two different languages and two different uses. HTML5 will remain the language for 97% of all web sites. I am rather amazed that XHTML5 is to be a spin off parallel to XHTML 1.1 and not replacing it. Seems odd to me... Why drop modularization form XHTML5? So if I want to Modularize my code I am to use XHTML 1.1 without whatever new tools XHTML5 brings out. If I want to use these new tools I cannot Modularize? What logic is that? Might I remind everyone that XHTML1.1 and XHTML5 MUST be served as XML with the application=xhtml+xml MimeType. Which means content negotiation is required as IE including IE8 will puke. Also make a minor mistake in the site and the page/site will not load... at all... nada... blank white screen with red XML error message. So think twice about using XHTML. ONLY XHTML1.0 may be served as "Tag Soup" (served as HTML) as long as it meets with Appendix C. So just use HTML to begin with. Also keep in mind that some JS does not function in XHTML 1.1/5, I believe there are two, one was document.write() I think. Also it is not SGML so no <!-- --> comments, you will have to get used to using CDATA. ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com ---------------------------------------- [Edit 3 times, last edit by LSW at Oct 15, 2008 12:12:39 PM] |
||
|
|
Wickham
Advanced Member UK Joined: Sep 17, 2007 Post Count: 590 Status: Offline |
According to this site:- http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/ the doctype for HTML 5 is:- <!DOCTYPE html> I'm not sure how that works as there's no url. How is my old WIN98 or XP computer to know what to do for HTML 5? I always imagined that a browser downloaded what it needed from the doctype url, like a plugin, as an old computer browser cannot have the latest code in it. I expect my old WIN98 pc was updated to IE6 before XHTML 1.0 existed, so it must access the doctype url for information. Edit: I think I've found the answer which is quite unexpected. No doctype triggers quirks mode in IE (as we know) but it seems that an unrecognised doctype triggers standards mode (how it does that in an old computer which probably doesn't know what the latest standards are, I'm still not sure). See http://www.elementary-group-standards.com/htm...type-is-unrecognized.html ---------------------------------------- Code downloaded to my PC will be deleted in due course. WIN XP SP3; IE7, Firefox 3.0, Opera and Safari for Windows; screen resolution usually 1024x768. IE6 on W98 with 800*600. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Wickham at Oct 15, 2008 2:43:18 PM] |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
The URL only specifies the flavor of HTML/XHTML. XHTML 1.1 & 5 Only have one, they expect strict doctypes. Therefore you do not give a DOCTYPE flavor because it defaults to the only thing available, Strict. What language is used is set long before the page loads, that is part of the Mime Type. If the browser tells the server it accepts application=xhtml+xml, the server sends that otherwise it sends the text/HTML mimetype. That is why it makes no difference if you say what language or character set to use in your meta tags as by the time that is read it has already been set in the mime type. So before the server even reads the doctype, it already knows what to send so the doctype is really only useful for validation and pages saved to the desktop. But I follow your thought... no URL OK, but one would think which version of HTML would still be noted. That said, I think one of the issues about HTML5 is that it is not backwards compatible... you choose 5 or 4.01... HTML5 and XHTML5 are created for the future and modern browsers. They have dropped legacy browsers. ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
MacRankin
Advanced Member Joined: Dec 18, 2005 Post Count: 368 Status: Offline |
Wickham, LSW, that is very interesting.  I had always thought there was something else going on up there. I mean, the url address in the doctype goes to the w3c servers, then and not anywhere else? So, it's the mime type that tells the hosted web page's server what to send to the browser. Blimey, you learn something every day, even if it has been several years since I first started mucking about with web pages.   Btw there LSW, you mention that HTML 5 will not be backwards compatible. How will this effect the mime type. I mean, would using 4.01 strict's mime type go all quirky? ---------------------------------------- We Brits do things differently, but we still get shot at! |
||
|
|
Wickham
Advanced Member UK Joined: Sep 17, 2007 Post Count: 590 Status: Offline |
I'm wondering if future web pages won't need alternative doctypes or alternative MIME types so that older browsers and OS can still display. I still can't get my head around how an old WIN98SE with IE6 is going to display HTML5 new attributes, etc. which IE6 won't read without some help. Edit: I suppose the answer has to be "cloud computing" (see Newseed's post re Desktop in Open forum) so that the computers only have to display what is sent down from "up there" and don't have to use any processing program of their own. ---------------------------------------- Code downloaded to my PC will be deleted in due course. WIN XP SP3; IE7, Firefox 3.0, Opera and Safari for Windows; screen resolution usually 1024x768. IE6 on W98 with 800*600. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Wickham at Oct 16, 2008 2:42:18 AM] |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
I mean, the url address in the doctype goes to the w3c servers, then and not anywhere else? That is what it is all about. The DOCTYPE URL is simply a link to documentation telling the browser how to show the page (the rules if you will, how to display what...) As there is no more flavors (Frameset, Transitional, Strict) there is but one way to show the page, correctly Strict. So XHTML1.1 did away with the flavor/URL as the browsers already know what to do (IE5.5+ and good browsers). you mention that HTML 5 will not be backwards compatible. How will this effect the mime type. I mean, would using 4.01 strict's mime type go all quirky? If you are working with HTML 4.01, then you continue to use the full DOCTYPE and URL we use now and the browser will use it... up until we have a full HTML5 browser which may not be backwards compatible. A HTML5 only browser would not deal well with HTML4.01 sites. Who knows how browser developers will deal with it? I'm wondering if future web pages won't need alternative doctypes or alternative MIME types so that older browsers and OS can still display. I can't say at this point for sure but what I remember reading a while back was that developers are giving up on legacy. The browser has to support HTML5 or the site will be a mess. People will just have to upgrade their browsers finally. For us that means two versions of web sites most likely or keep using HTML4.01 & XHTML 1.0 I still can't get my head around how an old WIN98SE with IE6 is going to display HTML5 new attributes, etc. which IE6 won't read without some help. They won't. The develpers want to break away cleanly from the past. ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
Wickham
Advanced Member UK Joined: Sep 17, 2007 Post Count: 590 Status: Offline |
For us that means two versions of web sites most likely That's my point, really. We can't assume that everyone will have a new browser, so a sniffer for the browser might have to be incorporated to send the correct page or stylesheet. If you use a new property like <q> then some alternative would have to be provided for older browsers; either a conditional comment in the markup to substitute <p> or a completely different page code. Conditional comments can be used for IE6 and IE7 but I've never tried that with the doctype or MIME type. ---------------------------------------- Code downloaded to my PC will be deleted in due course. WIN XP SP3; IE7, Firefox 3.0, Opera and Safari for Windows; screen resolution usually 1024x768. IE6 on W98 with 800*600. |
||
|
|
LSW
Advanced Member USA Joined: Nov 27, 2003 Post Count: 6287 Status: Offline |
We can't assume that everyone will have a new browser I found one of my old ref., apparently the languages are to be backwards compatible, the argument is that they should not be, the browsers should be. basically they (at the time of the writing) would be carrying over some bad stuff from HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0. Rather the browsers should be built to accept any doctype or mime type. This is however not the ref. I seem to recall, but I am now thinking that HTML5 was to be a modification of HTML4.01 and XHTML5 would be a whole new language. I am still looking for that one X/HTML 5 Versus XHTML 2 HTML 4 And XHTML 1 Faults Are Perpetuated Into A Future Spec Because X/HTML 5 attempts to be backwards compatible, many of the faults of HTML 4 and XHTML 1 will be perpetuated into X/HTML 5. Specs don't need to be backwards compatible. Instead, the better solution is that user-agents should be backwards compatible, by supporting multiple specs. - Direct Link Also worth quoting is: HTML 5 Versus XHTML 5 In an attempt to finally resolve the HTML versus XHTML debate, the X/HTML 5 spec actually makes the issue more complex to understand. Indeed, the X/HTML 5 spec actually says "generally speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use XML on the Web", even though W3C continues to herald XML as the future of the Web? This is exceptionally confusing and exceptionally uncool! DOCTYPES not relevant? Drop the <!DOCTYPE> Doctype Declarations and Content-Type Headers From the Top: Document Type Definitions How browsers work ---------------------------------------- Gu.aal kwsh� yak'�i it�akw ijeet wugood�k LSW-WebDesign.com |
||
|
|
shelfimage
Advanced Member USA Joined: Mar 24, 2005 Post Count: 3000 Status: Offline |
webkit and the latest Fx engine (and I hear also IE8) already support some HTML5 specs.to ---------------------------------------- "The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings." -Okakura Kakuzo Save the developers<!> Maine Webworks |
||
|
|
|
|
Current timezone is GMT Mar 21, 2010 12:42:58 AM |
