[MDC][HTML] HTML elements list
paul.p...@gmail.com
Here http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/HTML:Element you can find a
list of HTML elements that are (or soon will be) in MDC. There are a
lot of deprecated (like font) and not standard (like marquee) elements,
which must not be used nowadays. I suggest to mark them on the list as
deprecated/not standard and remove all it's description from their
pages, leaving only info that it's deprecated/not standard and maybe
how to accomplish it's functionality.
--
Regards,
PablO
Nickolay Ponomarev
<paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Here http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/HTML:Element you can find a
> list of HTML elements that are (or soon will be) in MDC. There are a
> lot of deprecated (like font) and not standard (like marquee) elements,
> which must not be used nowadays. I suggest to mark them on the list as
> deprecated/not standard
> and remove all it's description from their
> pages, leaving only info that it's deprecated/not standard and maybe
> how to accomplish it's functionality.
>
Why? Certainly a clear explanation of what a tag does, why a web
author shouldn't use it, and what he is supposed to use instead would
be more helpful.
Nickolay
PablO
Because IMVHO the only reason why they shouldn't use it (it's not a
standard) won't convince any begginner ;)
Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
so why we should provide any information about it?
--
Regards
Martijn
> Because IMVHO the only reason why they shouldn't use it (it's not a
> standard) won't convince any begginner ;)
> Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
> so why we should provide any information about it?
Why should marquee not be used? It is supported by all major browsers.
Because it's not on somebody's list, doesn't mean it should not be used.
Regards,
Martijn
> --
> Regards
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-mdc mailing list
> dev...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-mdc
>
Nickolay Ponomarev
> > On 7 Aug 2006 15:17:26 -0700, paul.p...@gmail.com
> > <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > and remove all it's description from their
> > > pages, leaving only info that it's deprecated/not standard and maybe
> > > how to accomplish it's functionality.
> > >
> > Why? Certainly a clear explanation of what a tag does, why a web
> > author shouldn't use it, and what he is supposed to use instead would
> > be more helpful.
>
> Because IMVHO the only reason why they shouldn't use it (it's not a
> standard) won't convince any begginner ;)
That's not the main reason you shouldn't use <marquee> or <blink> or
<font> or something else.
> Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
> so why we should provide any information about it?
>
Not providing any information leaves the developer in the dark, so he
has to look for the information about that element in other places,
which may be wrong/outdated.
It's obviously not a list of HTML4 elements (because it contains
things like <xml> and <xmp>) and I'm not sure we want to limit the
list to those (e.g. I envision HTML5 elements getting listed there).
We should just mark the deprecated and non-standard elements as such.
Nickolay
Zbigniew Braniecki
> > standard) won't convince any begginner ;)
> > Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
> > so why we should provide any information about it?
>
> Because it's not on somebody's list, doesn't mean it should not be used.
Just to clarify how far we disagree here,. "somebody's list" is W3C Standard
specification, right?
Greetings
Zbigniew Braniecki
Martijn
> 2006/8/7, Martijn <martijn...@gmail.com>:
> Just to clarify how far we disagree here,. "somebody's list" is W3C Standard
> specification, right?
Yes.
Regards,
Martijn
> Greetings
> Zbigniew Braniecki
>
>
>
Nickolay Ponomarev
> 2006/8/7, Martijn <martijn...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > standard) won't convince any begginner ;)
> > > Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
> > > so why we should provide any information about it?
> >
> > Because it's not on somebody's list, doesn't mean it should not be used.
>
>
> specification, right?
>
<marquee> shouldn't be used not because it's not in some W3C
specification, but because moving text is annoying and very rarely
necessary.
Nickolay
PablO
> On 7 Aug 2006 15:35:45 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nickolay Ponomarev wrote:
> > > Why? Certainly a clear explanation of what a tag does, why a web
> > > author shouldn't use it, and what he is supposed to use instead would
> > > be more helpful.
> >
> > Because IMVHO the only reason why they shouldn't use it (it's not a
> > standard) won't convince any begginner ;)
>
> That's not the main reason you shouldn't use <marquee> or <blink> or
> <font> or something else.
You're right, those elements doesn't provide any information about
included text, they only "say" how to display it. But I doubt it will
convince newbies.
> > Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
> > so why we should provide any information about it?
>
> Not providing any information leaves the developer in the dark, so he
> has to look for the information about that element in other places,
> which may be wrong/outdated.
Well, I don't see any information about document.all in the JavaScript
section, so I think we don't need any information about marquee or
blink. font should be marked as deprecated and that's all, why anybody
should bother to read what it does, if it's deprecated? ;)
> It's obviously not a list of HTML4 elements (because it contains
> things like <xml> and <xmp>)
They are only on the list (no description available), I have no idea
why.
> and I'm not sure we want to limit the
> list to those (e.g. I envision HTML5 elements getting listed there).
Then we should decide if it's HTML elements list or HTML like elements
list. When HTML5 will come, we should create new list, but not new
elements descriptions (if that's not necessary).
--
Regards
PablO
> Why should marquee not be used? It is supported by all major browsers.
Because MDC is Developer Center, not "Every Lame Can Do That" ;)
I mean that IMO MDC with that informations will be like tabloid,
marquee is so ugly like inserting <form> inside <table> to remove
margins. That's not what we want people learn from MDC, am I right?
--
Regards
Martijn
> <marquee> shouldn't be used not because it's not in some W3C
> specification, but because moving text is annoying and very rarely
> necessary.
Moving text can be annoying, but it can also be very charming.
A page like this brings a smile to my face:
http://forums.ebay.ph/thread.jspa?threadID=300000647&tstart=0&mod=1130706225517
How can you not like this?
I know it's not necessary, but I think that is the case for most
websites on the internet.
If there were only useful pages on the internet, it would be a very
boring place.
Regards,
Martijn
> Nickolay
>
Nickolay Ponomarev
> Nickolay Ponomarev wrote:
> > On 7 Aug 2006 15:35:45 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nickolay Ponomarev wrote:
> > > > Why? Certainly a clear explanation of what a tag does, why a web
> > > > author shouldn't use it, and what he is supposed to use instead would
> > > > be more helpful.
> > >
> > > Because IMVHO the only reason why they shouldn't use it (it's not a
> > > standard) won't convince any begginner ;)
> >
> > That's not the main reason you shouldn't use <marquee> or <blink> or
> > <font> or something else.
>
> You're right, those elements doesn't provide any information about
> included text, they only "say" how to display it. But I doubt it will
> convince newbies.
>
> > > Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
> > > so why we should provide any information about it?
> >
> > Not providing any information leaves the developer in the dark, so he
> > has to look for the information about that element in other places,
> > which may be wrong/outdated.
>
> Well, I don't see any information about document.all in the JavaScript
Because it's not JavaScript language, it's DOM. It should be
documented there. We already document a number of non-standard
properties and methods in the DOM reference. For some of them there's
no standard alternative.
> section, so I think we don't need any information about marquee or
> blink. font should be marked as deprecated and that's all, why anybody
> should bother to read what it does, if it's deprecated? ;)
>
Again, because someone a beginning web author may see it on someone's
page and wonder how should it be used. If he doesn't find its
description on MDC, he'll go look elsewhere, and we can't be sure
he'll find a good resource.
> > and I'm not sure we want to limit the
> > list to those (e.g. I envision HTML5 elements getting listed there).
>
> Then we should decide if it's HTML elements list or HTML like elements
I think it's a list of elements that can be used in HTML. If somebody
wants to only see the elements in a particular W3C specification, he
can visit w3.org.
> list. When HTML5 will come, we should create new list, but not new
> elements descriptions (if that's not necessary).
>
Define "will come". Parts of the specifications (<canvas>) are getting
implemented *now* and I argue they should be included in our
references.
Nickolay
Martijn
> section, so I think we don't need any information about marquee or
> blink. font should be marked as deprecated and that's all, why anybody
> should bother to read what it does, if it's deprecated? ;)
Marquee is not deprecated, it was never in any html specification, afaik.
I think we need to describe all html elements that Mozilla supports.
Regards,
Martijn
Martijn
Well, I still don't understand why using marquee would be lame.
Inserting forms inside tables is just a clumsy way of removing
margins, so I don't think you can compare it.
Anyway, I just think mdc should contain all elements that Mozilla supports.
We just want people to learn what elements they can use in Mozilla, afaict.
Regards,
Martijn
PablO
> On 7 Aug 2006 16:02:55 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nickolay Ponomarev wrote:
> > > That's not the main reason you shouldn't use <marquee> or <blink> or
> > > <font> or something else.
> >
> > You're right, those elements doesn't provide any information about
> > included text, they only "say" how to display it. But I doubt it will
> > convince newbies.
> >
> I don't know what you're talking about.
So read what is HTML and why is it for ;)
h1 specifies headings, p - paragraphs, ul - unordered list, marquee -
flying text. Which one doesn't fit? ;]
> > > > Besides I thought this is HTML4.01 elements list, there is no marquee,
> > > > so why we should provide any information about it?
> > >
> > > Not providing any information leaves the developer in the dark, so he
> > > has to look for the information about that element in other places,
> > > which may be wrong/outdated.
> >
> > Well, I don't see any information about document.all in the JavaScript
> Because it's not JavaScript language, it's DOM.
Yes, you're right, my mistake, but it's not available in DOM section
either.
> We already document a number of non-standard
> properties and methods in the DOM reference. For some of them there's
> no standard alternative.
Are you thinking about any deprecated/obsolete/useless properties or
methods?
> > section, so I think we don't need any information about marquee or
> > blink. font should be marked as deprecated and that's all, why anybody
> > should bother to read what it does, if it's deprecated? ;)
> >
> Again, because someone a beginning web author may see it on someone's
> page and wonder how should it be used.
Well, a beginier could also see a page generated with word, does it
mean we should provide information about <w:WordDocument>? There should
be some limits here, and I thikt it should be HTML4.01 Strict if we are
going to provide good information, not every we can find event if it's
useless nad prerehistoric ;)
Besides who will add this infomation? Who will ever bother to write
about useless elements?
> If he doesn't find its
> description on MDC, he'll go look elsewhere, and we can't be sure
> he'll find a good resource.
OK, so we might say what element do and why it should be avoided. If he
still wants to use it - that's his/her problem ;)
It's like writing "bomb can explode and harm people, don't do that"
instead of creating full info how to create one with warning message at
the top.
> > > and I'm not sure we want to limit the
> > > list to those (e.g. I envision HTML5 elements getting listed there).
> >
> > Then we should decide if it's HTML elements list or HTML like elements
>
> I think it's a list of elements that can be used in HTML.
Define HTML. Only HTML I know is the one documented by W3C and there is
no marquee -> it can't be used. Yes, it works, so what?
> If somebody
> wants to only see the elements in a particular W3C specification, he
> can visit w3.org.
So, if somebody wants to see elements that are not in W3C
specification, he can visit elements creator homepage ;]
> > list. When HTML5 will come, we should create new list, but not new
> > elements descriptions (if that's not necessary).
> >
> Define "will come".
It won't be working draft, but complete specification/recommendation.
But I don't see any reasons not to do add it now.
> Parts of the specifications (<canvas>) are getting
> implemented *now* and I argue they should be included in our
> references.
I agree here.
--
Regards
PablO
> On 7 Aug 2006 16:10:23 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I still don't understand why using marquee would be lame.
It's not in XHTML1 or 2, in HTML5 it's mentioned, but no description is
available, so event if it's work, no one reccomends it and we also
shouldn't.
It's not even full supported by browsers (you can't stop it).
> Anyway, I just think mdc should contain all elements that Mozilla supports.
> We just want people to learn what elements they can use in Mozilla, afaict.
Is it a "everythig anyone ever invented" or "everything worth knowing"
database? ;]
--
Regards
Nickolay Ponomarev
> > > section, so I think we don't need any information about marquee or
> > > blink. font should be marked as deprecated and that's all, why anybody
> > > should bother to read what it does, if it's deprecated? ;)
> > >
> > Again, because someone a beginning web author may see it on someone's
> > page and wonder how should it be used.
>
> Well, a beginier could also see a page generated with word, does it
> mean we should provide information about <w:WordDocument>? There should
> be some limits here, and I thikt it should be HTML4.01 Strict if we are
> going to provide good information, not every we can find event if it's
> useless nad prerehistoric ;)
> Besides who will add this infomation? Who will ever bother to write
> about useless elements?
>
interested writers will document more important things first.
> > If he doesn't find its
> > description on MDC, he'll go look elsewhere, and we can't be sure
> > he'll find a good resource.
>
> OK, so we might say what element do and why it should be avoided. If he
> still wants to use it - that's his/her problem ;)
> It's like writing "bomb can explode and harm people, don't do that"
> instead of creating full info how to create one with warning message at
> the top.
>
What you're suggesting is letting the author figure out why the bomb
is harmful on his own.
Nickolay
L. David Baron
> Nickolay Ponomarev wrote:
> > On 7 Aug 2006 16:02:55 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nickolay Ponomarev wrote:
> > > > That's not the main reason you shouldn't use <marquee> or <blink> or
> > > > <font> or something else.
> > >
> > > You're right, those elements doesn't provide any information about
> > > included text, they only "say" how to display it. But I doubt it will
> > > convince newbies.
> > >
> > I don't know what you're talking about.
>
> So read what is HTML and why is it for ;)
> h1 specifies headings, p - paragraphs, ul - unordered list, marquee -
> flying text. Which one doesn't fit? ;]
I think accurate documentation of anything that Mozilla supports for Web
content must be acceptable for MDC. If it's not, then we'll just end up
with wars of people deleting documentation of features that they don't
like.
I also don't see any compelling arguments for why we should separate the
decisions of whether we should implement something and whether it's
acceptable to document that implementation. That doesn't make any sense
to me, and it sounds more like you're disagreeing with that one decision
(supporting marquee) than arguing that the decisions should be separate.
If somebody wants to document marquee, they can. Nobody's going to
force you to document it.
However, we might want to implement something and then document why we
don't want people to use it. So you're welcome to accurately and
rationally document why marquee is bad.
-David
--
L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
PablO
> On 7 Aug 2006 16:02:55 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I don't see any information about document.all in the JavaScript
> > section, so I think we don't need any information about marquee or
> > blink. font should be marked as deprecated and that's all, why anybody
> > should bother to read what it does, if it's deprecated? ;)
>
> Marquee is not deprecated,
I didn't write marquee is deprecated.
> it was never in any html specification, afaik.
I know only one HTML specification ;]
marquee is in Microsoft DHTML Reference.
> I think we need to describe all html elements that Mozilla supports.
Well, it's Mozilla Developer Center, not Webmaster Center, so you're
probably right.
All I want is to provide good quality information and IMO there is no
place for marquee ;)
--
Regards
PablO
> I think we should describe the elements mozilla supports. Presumably,
> interested writers will document more important things first.
And I don't agree with it. I just don't want people to learn wrong
things from it.
Yes, I think knowing marquee, blink, strike and other more than "it
exist but it's bad" is useless ;)
> > OK, so we might say what element do and why it should be avoided. If he
> > still wants to use it - that's his/her problem ;)
> > It's like writing "bomb can explode and harm people, don't do that"
> > instead of creating full info how to create one with warning message at
> > the top.
> >
> What you're suggesting is letting the author figure out why the bomb
> is harmful on his own.
Well I don't know how to make bomb and I don't need to create one to
know that it is harmfull ;)
--
Regards
PablO
> I think accurate documentation of anything that Mozilla supports for Web
> content must be acceptable for MDC. If it's not, then we'll just end up
> with wars of people deleting documentation of features that they don't
> like.
It's not tha I don't like marquee, it's about giving true information.
We have category HTML:Elements, AFAIR there is only W3C HTML and there
is no marquee or bgsound there, so putting it there is simply a
mistake. My point is that those elements should be removed or moved,
but where?
> I also don't see any compelling arguments for why we should separate the
> decisions of whether we should implement something and whether it's
> acceptable to document that implementation. That doesn't make any sense
> to me, and it sounds more like you're disagreeing with that one decision
> (supporting marquee) than arguing that the decisions should be separate.
I think using marquee, font etc. is a bad practice, that's why I don't
think there is a place for it on MDC.
> If somebody wants to document marquee, they can. Nobody's going to
> force you to document it.
I know, but as long it's there, people will use it, and as long people
will use it, it should be there, that's a blind circle.
> However, we might want to implement something and then document why we
> don't want people to use it. So you're welcome to accurately and
> rationally document why marquee is bad.
I think I get the point and I agree now, it should be on MDC if mozilla
supports it. But it definately can't be in HTML:Element group, maybe
HTML:Not standard element or something?
--
Regards
PablO
> Marquee is not deprecated, it was never in any html specification, afaik.
> I think we need to describe all html elements that Mozilla supports.
If it's not in HTML specs, how can you call it an HTML element? It is
an XML element that do some magic when included in HTML page ;)
--
Regards
Martijn
It's an html element, because every popular browser supports it.
I know it's not in an html spec. It's an element that is meant to be
used in html, that's why I call it an html element.
I think David said it fine here:
"However, we might want to implement something and then document why we
don't want people to use it. So you're welcome to accurately and
rationally document why marquee is bad."
If you would document on a page why you think marquee is bad, I would
have no problem with that.
It's just that, if someone wants scrolling text, then marquee is just
the easiest way to do it.
Regards,
Martijn
>
> --
PablO
> On 7 Aug 2006 18:22:51 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Martijn wrote:
> > > Marquee is not deprecated, it was never in any html specification, afaik.
> > > I think we need to describe all html elements that Mozilla supports.
> >
> > If it's not in HTML specs, how can you call it an HTML element? It is
> > an XML element that do some magic when included in HTML page ;)
>
> It's an html element, because every popular browser supports it.
AFAIK that is not a definition of HTML element.
> I know it's not in an html spec. It's an element that is meant to be
> used in html, that's why I call it an html element.
And that's why I want it to be in HTML Not standard element (category
and list), to not to confuse any beginner.
I think good solution will be:
HTML:Element page with listed all ever used HTML and HTML Not standard
(marked) elements;
Category:HTML:HTML401 Elements - that doesn't require explanation (font
also goes here, but marked as deprecated) ;)
Category:HTML:Not standard elements - marquee, blink, embed and
anything that will come.
canvas might be in Category:HTML:HTML5 Elements
> I think David said it fine here:
> "However, we might want to implement something and then document why we
> don't want people to use it. So you're welcome to accurately and
> rationally document why marquee is bad."
I've already agreed with that ;)
--
Regards
Nickolay Ponomarev
> Martijn wrote:
> > I know it's not in an html spec. It's an element that is meant to be
> > used in html, that's why I call it an html element.
>
> And that's why I want it to be in HTML Not standard element (category
> and list), to not to confuse any beginner.
> I think good solution will be:
> HTML:Element page with listed all ever used HTML and HTML Not standard
> (marked) elements;
> Category:HTML:HTML401 Elements - that doesn't require explanation (font
> also goes here, but marked as deprecated) ;)
> Category:HTML:Not standard elements - marquee, blink, embed and
> anything that will come.
> canvas might be in Category:HTML:HTML5 Elements
>
[[Category:HTMLnn elements]].
Nickolay
PablO
Instead of [[Category:HTML Not standard elements]]?
What does HTMLnn means?
--
Regards
Nickolay Ponomarev
No point in repeating HTML twice in the category name.
Nickolay
PablO
OK, I just thought it should be a subcategory of HTML ;)
--
Regards
Deb Richardson
So, having skimmed through this discussion a few times, I think we should do
the following:
1) Mark elements as deprecated/not standard as appropriate.
2) Document standard and non-standard elements alike, marking non-standard
appropriately. Do not remove any documentation from the wikis.
3) Use Nickolay's suggestion for categorization (ie: [[Category:HTMLnn]])
If I'm missed something important, let me know.
~ deb
dolphinling
> On 7 Aug 2006 16:10:23 -0700, PablO <paul.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Martijn wrote:
>> > Why should marquee not be used? It is supported by all major browsers.
>>
>> Because MDC is Developer Center, not "Every Lame Can Do That" ;)
>> I mean that IMO MDC with that informations will be like tabloid,
>> marquee is so ugly like inserting <form> inside <table> to remove
>> margins. That's not what we want people learn from MDC, am I right?
>
> Well, I still don't understand why using marquee would be lame.
> Inserting forms inside tables is just a clumsy way of removing
> margins, so I don't think you can compare it.
> Anyway, I just think mdc should contain all elements that Mozilla supports.
> We just want people to learn what elements they can use in Mozilla, afaict.
<marquee> isn't semantic; it doesn't provide any information about what
its content is. It's just like <font> or <big> or <strike>: they're all
bad code.
However, I do agree it should be documented, and its use should be
discouraged.
--
dolphinling
<http://dolphinling.net/>
dolphinling
> 3) Use Nickolay's suggestion for categorization (ie: [[Category:HTMLnn]])
I don't see any reason for this. Mozilla doesn't support different
"levels" of HTML, only one. If this were a standards reference, it would
make sense, but it's not.
(Note that quirks mode is not the same as "levels": there are a very few
attributes/values handled in quirks but not standards mode, and no
elements at all; most of the differences are in style.)
--
dolphinling
<http://dolphinling.net/>
L. David Baron
> Deb Richardson wrote:
> >3) Use Nickolay's suggestion for categorization (ie: [[Category:HTMLnn]])
>
> I don't see any reason for this. Mozilla doesn't support different
> "levels" of HTML, only one. If this were a standards reference, it would
> make sense, but it's not.
Agreed. The history of HTML versions is incredibly messy and not much
use to authors, and could easily become messier in the future. I think
it's worth documenting when Mozilla started supporting things, and worth
linking to relevant specifications.
Nickolay Ponomarev
> On Tuesday 2006-08-08 18:01 -0400, dolphinling wrote:
> > >3) Use Nickolay's suggestion for categorization (ie: [[Category:HTMLnn]])
> >
> > I don't see any reason for this. Mozilla doesn't support different
> > "levels" of HTML, only one. If this were a standards reference, it would
> > make sense, but it's not.
>
> use to authors, and could easily become messier in the future. I think
> it's worth documenting when Mozilla started supporting things, and worth
> linking to relevant specifications.
>
new WHATWG specified features.
Nickolay
PablO
> Deb Richardson wrote:
> > 3) Use Nickolay's suggestion for categorization (ie: [[Category:HTMLnn]])
>
> I don't see any reason for this. Mozilla doesn't support different
> "levels" of HTML, only one.
There is HTML4.01, XHTML, there is HTML5 incoming and there are non
standard HTML elements. Putting it all together without categorizing it
wont be much helpfull for people wanting to learn how much Mozilla
supports (X)HTML, and how much does it supports other "HTML like"
elements, if they don't remember all of them.
P.S. Do we also want to have HTML3.2 category? I hope not.
--
Regards
L. David Baron
> dolphinling wrote:
> > Deb Richardson wrote:
> > > 3) Use Nickolay's suggestion for categorization (ie: [[Category:HTMLnn]])
> >
> > I don't see any reason for this. Mozilla doesn't support different
> > "levels" of HTML, only one.
>
> There is HTML4.01, XHTML, there is HTML5 incoming and there are non
XHTML1.0 doesn't introduce new elements. XHTML2 is a new language and
is not backwards-compatible with HTML4. If you can explain what XHTML
1.1 and XHTML Modularization are, I'd be interested in hearing it.
> standard HTML elements. Putting it all together without categorizing it
> wont be much helpfull for people wanting to learn how much Mozilla
> supports (X)HTML, and how much does it supports other "HTML like"
> elements, if they don't remember all of them.
Specification conformance testing is much more complicated than listing
supported features, and I would be strongly opposed to our documentation
attempting to indicate levels of support or conformance by something so
simplistic as counting supported features or elements.
PablO
Listing supported feautres wont get us farther from it, so what do you
suggest? How should we indicate those levels and why listing them is
bad?
--
Regards
Justin Wood (Callek)
specification (if any);
"Not Standard -- Not in any Specification"
"[[HTML5]] -- See the definition in the HTML5 Specification by the
[[WhatWG]]" (links to relevant places, not in-MDC)
"HTML4.01 -- See the definition in the HTML4.01 Specification, by the
W3C HTML WG"
etc, etc.
~Justin Wood (Callek)
PablO
> We could indicate those levels simply by a link to relevant
> specification (if any);
You mean in the element description page?
> "Not Standard -- Not in any Specification"
>
> "[[HTML5]] -- See the definition in the HTML5 Specification by the
> [[WhatWG]]" (links to relevant places, not in-MDC)
>
> "HTML4.01 -- See the definition in the HTML4.01 Specification, by the
> W3C HTML WG"
That's good idea, but still I don't understand how creating categories
is wrong here?
--
Regards
Deb Richardson
agree with dbaron, also suggesting a slight alternative.
Having every HTML element in the top level "HTML" category is going to make
that category pretty messy. So rather than put all the elements in
[[Category:HTML]], I suggest we put all the elements (regardless of HTML
"level") into [[Category:HTML Reference]], then put the HTML Reference
category in [[Category:HTML]].
Whether an element is standard, non-standard, WhatWG, etc. should be
mentioned on the element's page, but all the elements should be in the same
"HTML Reference" category.
Does that seem sensible?
~ deb
PablO
> I thought about this more last night, and I'm going to change my answer and
> agree with dbaron, also suggesting a slight alternative.
>
> Having every HTML element in the top level "HTML" category is going to make
> that category pretty messy. So rather than put all the elements in
> [[Category:HTML]], I suggest we put all the elements (regardless of HTML
> "level") into [[Category:HTML Reference]],
There is already Category:HTML Elements Reference. There is a generated
automatically list of all elements.
> then put the HTML Reference
> category in [[Category:HTML]].
It already is.
> Whether an element is standard, non-standard, WhatWG, etc. should be
> mentioned on the element's page, but all the elements should be in the same
> "HTML Reference" category.
>
> Does that seem sensible?
Yes it does and somebody did it earlier ;)
All I want is to create categories for HTML4.01, HTML5, HTML non
standard for easy listing elements that belongs to them.
--
Regards
Benoit Leseul
> Whether an element is standard, non-standard, WhatWG, etc. should be
> mentioned on the element's page, but all the elements should be in the same
> "HTML Reference" category.
>
> Does that seem sensible?
You could easily add some more subcategories like "HTML3.2", "HTML4",
"HTML5". Take for instance
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM:window.alert which is in both
"Gecko DOM Reference" and "DOM 0".
I don't know how non-standard HTML could be called though, I have
heard of no such thing as "HTML 0". Maybe just "NonStandard" :)
Deprecated elements could probably share yet another category.
For example, <font> would be in the categories "HTML Reference",
"HTML3.2" and "Deprecated" (since it has later been deprecated in HTML
4.01 strict); <canvas> would be in "HTML Reference" and "HTML5" and
<marquee> in "HTML Reference" and "NonStandard".