HTML 5.0
maya
hi,
I have a job interview this afternoon, they want familiarity with HTML
5.0.. I can't even find a doctype for HTML 5.0..
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
I usu. use XHTML 1.0.. so what do I need to know about HTML 5.0? I
found one ref here, http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp
and found that <frameset> & <frame> are not accepted in HTML 5.0..
neither is <applet>.. interesting... <font> and <center> are also not
accepted (but these are probably also not accepted in HTML 4.0 right?
certainly I know they're not accepted in XHTML..) can you further
enlighten me about HTML 5.0??
thank you very much..
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> I have a job interview this afternoon, they want familiarity with HTML
> 5.0.. I can't even find a doctype for HTML 5.0..
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
That is because it is still just a working draft.
> I usu. use XHTML 1.0.. so what do I need to know about HTML 5.0?
What kind of company is this? Are they currently writing web sites in
the 5.0?
> I found one ref here, http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp
> and found that <frameset> & <frame> are not accepted in HTML 5.0..
> neither is <applet>.. interesting... <font> and <center> are also not
> accepted (but these are probably also not accepted in HTML 4.0 right?
You also need to learn about Strict, Transitional, and Frameset, it
might seem...
> certainly I know they're not accepted in XHTML..)
They are if you use the proper version of HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0.
> can you further enlighten me about HTML 5.0??
Wait a few years? ;-)
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
maya
thank you Beauregard.. in answer to yr first question: don't know if
they're presently using HTML 5.0 or plan to do in the future.. this is
from job-desc:
- HTML (HTML5 & XHTML):
HTML development, debugging and testing. Create good,
cross-browser code and make sure it works in those
environments. It sounds easy, but it isn't, we want
someone who knows the intricacies and how to solve them.
I would like to know how XHTML 1.0 relates to HTML 5.. found that
doctype for HTML 5.0 is simply <!DOCTYPE html>
(http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/16/html5-and-the-future-of-the-web/)
just validated some HTML 5.0 with some of the new HTML 5.0 tags with
this doctype and it validated....
when used a HTML 5.0 tag (like <datalist>) with doctype for XHTML 1.0 it
didn't validate...
but I think I get it now.. have researched more since I posted.. it
seems entire HTML/DOM structure is diff for HTML 5.0.. look at graphic
here.. png towards the middle of the page.. interesting.. but again: it
looks like you can't use HTML 5.0 tags (<section> <nav> <aside> etc)
with XHTML.. this is what I don't quite get..)
thank you..
David Stone
maya <maya7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> > maya wrote:
> >
> >> I have a job interview this afternoon, they want familiarity with HTML
> >> 5.0.. I can't even find a doctype for HTML 5.0..
> >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
> >
> > That is because it is still just a working draft.
You can, however, read it!
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
And there's a summary of the differences from html 4 here:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/
[snip]
>
> I would like to know how XHTML 1.0 relates to HTML 5.. found that
> doctype for HTML 5.0 is simply <!DOCTYPE html>
> (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/16/html5-and-the-future-of-the-web/)
> just validated some HTML 5.0 with some of the new HTML 5.0 tags with
> this doctype and it validated....
> when used a HTML 5.0 tag (like <datalist>) with doctype for XHTML 1.0 it
> didn't validate...
There are quite a lot of changes (see the link above). Some syntax is
included from XHTML, as browsers are already dealing with this (possibly
as a result of XHTML being served as html documents to get around IE?)
There was a thread in here a month or two ago about html 5, and whether
web authors should start using it. Google, as one example, appears to be
doing so already, although not without issues according to the W3C
validator! You might want to go back and look for that thread.
Garrett Smith
>
> hi,
>
> I have a job interview this afternoon, they want familiarity with HTML
> 5.0.. I can't even find a doctype for HTML 5.0..
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
>
You should have searched the web.
> I usu. use XHTML 1.0..
What for?
so what do I need to know about HTML 5.0?
You should have asked that prior to getting the interview. The first
question that comes to mind whne reading that they use HTML 5 is: "What
for?"
I
> found one ref here, http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp
w3schools is mostly full of shit. HTML5 is higly volatile and unfinshied
and so thrid party tutorials will always be out of date.
Palm uses HTML5 for Palm OS. I am not aware of other companies using
HTML 5 and for theo bvious reason that it just is not implemented yet.
So it begs the question of what they're doing with HTML 5. Sometimes
technology decisions get made for the wrong reasons.
Someone who doesn't know how to interview front end engineers will
usually end up hiring someone he likes personally (which isn't
necessarily going to be someone who is competent, much less "ideal").
Good evidence to that is to see the very common type of modern site which:
* Uses xhtml doctype (possibly using XML prolog).
* is invalid markup
* Uses jQuery
* Requires javascript (this violates WCAG P1 guidelines)
* Doesn't work in IE6
The decisios to hire developers who do things like that are based on to
various prejudice and irrelevant subjectivity. They like the candidate,
but for the wrong reasons.
--
Garrett
comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
Gus Richter
[snip]
> I am not aware of other companies using HTML 5 ........
[snip]
> I am not aware of other companies using HTML 5 ......
Check out these three:
google.com
mozilla.com
apple.com
--
Gus
Garrett Smith
Chris F.A. Johnson
> Gus Richter wrote:
>> On 12/17/2009 1:36 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I am not aware of other companies using HTML 5 ........
>> [snip]
>>
>> > I am not aware of other companies using HTML 5 ......
>>
>> Check out these three:
>>
>> google.com
>> mozilla.com
>> apple.com
> html5 doctype. Lots of validation errors. What's the point in that.
mozilla.com valiadates.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfajohnson.com>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> writes:
>> html5 doctype. Lots of validation errors. What's the point in that.
>
> The W3C usually publishes �recommendations�. You do not have to
> follow them, they are no binding laws. You also may ignore them or
> only partially follow them. - Whatever you deem to be better for you.
> So, some publishers have decided to partially ignore them.
Some may decide to partially ignore the recommendations. Others seem to
ignore them completely. However, I'd venture that most publishers are
totally unaware of them - depending entirely on the standard output of
applications such as Dreamweaver, FrontPage, WordPress and the like.
dorayme
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
> Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> writes:
> >html5 doctype. Lots of validation errors. What's the point in that.
>
> The W3C usually publishes »recommendations«. You do not have
> to follow them, they are no binding laws.
What is this to be contrasted with? Stasi directives?
--
dorayme
Malcolm Dew-Jones
: In article <j6-dnVzwAYBXubTW...@giganews.com>,
: maya <maya7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
: > > maya wrote:
: > >
: > >> I have a job interview this afternoon, they want familiarity with HTML
: > >> 5.0.. I can't even find a doctype for HTML 5.0..
: > >> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
: > >
: > > That is because it is still just a working draft.
: You can, however, read it!
: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html
: And there's a summary of the differences from html 4 here:
: http://dev.w3.org/html5/html4-differences/
Thanks for those links.
I don't see my pet peeve being addressed. I wish they would make it
possible for valid html to be also basically valid xml (I'm not talking
about xhtml, but simply html with format consistent with xml). I would
like to be able to create html that is also valid xml so it could be
manipulated by xml tools.
In particular, I wish they would allow html elements such as <br> <hr>
<input> to have closing tags and/or allow the xml syntax of <tag/>? This
seem like it should be an easy thing to do - most browsers already accept
this syntax anyway, so the only change required is the definition of what
is valid.
For example, the <br> definition would say to treat it the same as it
already is, <br/> would be treated identically to <br>, and the html
definition of </br> would simply say to ignore it. Then, if you had any
variations of 'br' in your content you could use the content as html with
no issues. If you wished to treat the content as xml then you would need
to ensure any </br> was correctly balanced with <br>, but that is trivial
to do. The result would be tagged text containg 'br' that could be
treated as either html (by browsers) or xml by various xml tools.
To make entities definitions compatible between html and xml you would
allow html to include the defines of the standard html entities (and
perhaps html validators would warn if you redefine them to something
non-standard). That may already be allowed, so this may not even be a
change. In this manner an html document could contain the entity
definitions required for it to be valid xml while still behaving correctly
when interpreted as html.
The only other issue I can think of is the <?xml...> declaration, but this
is trivial to handle on the fly so it does not need to be handled by the
html definition. A tool that wants to manipulate html as xml might need
to feed the xml declaration into the xml tool just before passing the html
to it.
The above would not ever _require_ valid html to be valid xml. It would
still be possible to create html that is totally invalid as xml. However
it would _allow_ html to be set up to be valid xml, which is something
that I think would be useful.
$0.10
Garrett Smith
>
What recommendation are you thinking here?
> to follow them, they are no binding laws. You also may
> ignore them or only partially follow them. - Whatever you
> deem to be better for you. So, some publishers have decided
> to partially ignore them.
>
Ignore *what*?
Neredbojias
Ditto above. However, it's (all right, fancifully...) possible that
this basically will come to pass in a more finalized version of html5.
If not, then 6.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
maya
> maya wrote:
>>
>> hi,
>>
>> I have a job interview this afternoon, they want familiarity with HTML
>> 5.0.. I can't even find a doctype for HTML 5.0..
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
>>
>
> You should have searched the web.
>
>> I usu. use XHTML 1.0..
>
> What for?
>
> so what do I need to know about HTML 5.0?
>
> You should have asked that prior to getting the interview. The first
> question that comes to mind whne reading that they use HTML 5 is: "What
> for?"
>
> I
>> found one ref here, http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp
>
> w3schools is mostly full of shit. HTML5 is higly volatile and unfinshied
> and so thrid party tutorials will always be out of date.
>
> Palm uses HTML5 for Palm OS. I am not aware of other companies using
> HTML 5 and for theo bvious reason that it just is not implemented yet.
> So it begs the question of what they're doing with HTML 5. Sometimes
> technology decisions get made for the wrong reasons.
>
> Someone who doesn't know how to interview front end engineers will
> usually end up hiring someone he likes personally (which isn't
> necessarily going to be someone who is competent, much less "ideal").
well, I asked in the interview if they were using it, he said no, they
might in the future (my OP was before the interview..) and asked
casually if I was familiar with it.. not sure what the story is...
>
> Good evidence to that is to see the very common type of modern site which:
> * Uses xhtml doctype (possibly using XML prolog).
> * is invalid markup
well of course this is bad regardless of doctype....;-)
> * Uses jQuery
is there something wrong with using jQuery?
> * Requires javascript (this violates WCAG P1 guidelines)
most sites use JavaScript, is this wrong? ( I don't use event handlers
in markup, I do everything w/event-binding...)
> * Doesn't work in IE6
since I'm on Win2000 my stuff does work on IE6, thank you very
much..;-)
Chris F.A. Johnson
>
The W3C publishes specifications. These are what the browsers
follow when rendering an HTML page. Even the worst of them now
complies very closely with the specification.
> You do not have to follow them, they are no binding laws.
But if you do, you stand a much better chance of a page working
correctly. Why make a browser guess what you really want?
> You also may ignore them or only partially follow them. - Whatever
> you deem to be better for you. So, some publishers have decided to
> partially ignore them.
Jukka K. Korpela
> On 2009-12-18, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Garrett Smith <dhtmlk...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> html5 doctype. Lots of validation errors. What's the point in that.
>>
>> The W3C usually publishes ?recommendations?.
>
> The W3C publishes specifications.
That's debatable. W3C has started using the word "standards", confusing
people further. If you look closer, you'll still see notes, drafts,
candidate recommendations, proposed recommendations, and recommendations -
though they now call the last group "Web Standards", too, rather pomposely.
W3C recommendations usually lack the rigorousness and stability that we are
entitled to expect when something is called "specification", not to mention
"standard". And, in particular, there is nothing we could reasonably call
"the HTML specification". There are HTML 3.2, HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, XHTML
1.1, and a few others, and the newest don't even define semantics but imply
HTML 4.01, which is in many ways vague.
> These are what the browsers
> follow when rendering an HTML page.
You're joking, are you not?
> Even the worst of them now
> complies very closely with the specification.
I see, you _are_ joking.
> Why make a browser guess what you really want?
They do it anyway. In particular, that's what doctype sniffing is about.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Stan Brown
<dhtmlk...@gmail.com>:
> Good evidence to that is to see the very common type of modern site which:
I started to set up a custom Google search for my course pages at
students' request, but abandoned the effort when I found out that it
requires Javascript. I can't imagine why Google has such a
requirement, since the search processing has to be done server side.
Fortunately, I discovered that Google's "site" keyword ("domains" and
"sitesearch" field in the form) can be specified down to the
directory level, not just domain, so I was able to implement search
with just the standard Google form. You can find an example, if
you're interested, at
http://www.tc3.edu/instruct/sbrown/stat5010a/
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you
Stan Brown
> Instead you seem to want to try to help those big companies
> by giving them this information for free here on this newsgroups.
> ("Hey Google, your page is not valid. It would be better
> for you, if it would be!")
Given its historical attitudes toward Usenet, I think there's
essentially zero probability of Google's being helped by anything
that is published here.