111 HTML 5

Wow…it’s interesting. i will to see

posted at 07:18 pm on January 26, 2008 by angkana jivaphaiboolsak

112 Untitled

I really think just having a migration to xml would be better, instead of all of these tags defined for us. seems very limiting.

posted at 11:24 pm on January 31, 2008 by brian k

113 Usefull

This is very useful addition to the general knowledge on the subject.

posted at 08:25 pm on February 4, 2008 by Dusan Knezevic

114 How about HTML+?

I was looking for a solution to a structural markup problem I’m having and came across the HTML+ specification from 1993. Now why don’t they just implement some (or most) of the tags discussed in this document?

posted at 01:46 pm on February 27, 2008 by Robert Sadler

115 Who does this benefit?

Certainly not those hellbent on staying in the html stone age who will have to learn a host of new things.

I don’t see how it helps the standards community by blurring content with presentation once again.

Nor do I see how it helps people innovate the web by implementing very specific inflexible tags. If there’s going to be a new html it should be what we have with fewer, more general tags, not more.

Reading the specs reminds of that scene in Robocop 2 where a committee of politicians reprograms his directives and he goes from four to thousands.

I’m still not clear what the actual purpose of html 5 is? We’re already on the right track. We have everything we need to keep content, presentation and behavior separate.

posted at 11:06 pm on February 29, 2008 by Erik Reppen

116 This also really bothered me

“Benefits of Using HTML * Backwards compatible with existing browsers * Authors are already familiar with the syntax * The lenient and forgiving syntax means there will be no user-hostile “Yellow Screen of Deathâ€? if a mistake accidentally slips through * Convenient shorthand syntax, e.g. authors can omit some tags and attribute values”

I thought we’d all agreed that most of these “benefits” were a “bad” thing that contributed to browser bloat and accessibility.

Excess backwards compatibility forces us to continue to limit our sites for people who refuse to move on from the stone age.

Allowing improper nesting and syntax aggravates the issue of cross-browser compatibility. I have no problem with maintaining the core elements in future versions of xhtml (as long as all presentational attributes get yoinked) but I don’t think it’s too much to ask of people to write it all in lower case and close their damn tags properly so we don’t have to deal with 8 browsers that look for and compensate for these mistakes in 8 different ways.

Has the W3C forgotten why it was formed in the first place? What’s the point of a spec that lets people ignore standards to a greater degree than xhtml transitional and strict do?

posted at 03:57 am on March 1, 2008 by Erik Reppen

117 Have tried it out now

I just tried out the HTML 5 <video> tag on Safari 3.1.

Looking forward even more towards a full scaled HTML 5 support in all major browsers.

It’s just wonderfull!

posted at 04:17 pm on March 18, 2008 by Karl Roos

118 Ease of use in hTML

Anything that makes rendering the UI easy can only be a step in the right direction. This will enable interaction designers to quickly set up mock ups for their clients and hence enhance rapid prototyping.

posted at 08:59 pm on January 6, 2009 by Harnish Goradia

119 Untitled

good to see this in the works

posted at 02:07 pm on January 14, 2009 by s p

120 Why go Backwards? Makes NO SENSE!!

I am not sure I can see the purpose of HTML 5 and changing from divs to headers, nav, etc. I like that the div is generic because of nesting multiple divs. For instance, at times I make a header with 3 <div>s. 1 main div, 2 nested divs, one floated L and R. Can you do all this nesting with HTML 5? Theres more complex layouts then just those basic areas mentioned. how can 5 do that? And what is wrong with XHTML and CSS??? I like CSS and the things I can do with it.

I think HTML 5 is a step backwards. Definitely not a good thing. Just a cryin shame.

posted at 08:58 pm on January 16, 2009 by Kelly Lucas