Linked by Kroc Camen on Mon 9th Nov 2009 14:20 UTC
Editorial Hands up if you use Firefox. Have used it? Know about it? Heard of it? 'Sites up and down the World Wide Web today will be celebrating five years of Firefox. When I sat down to write this I worried about having to list the history of its features and landmark events and the news of the past five years. Other sites will be comprehensively doing that, there is nothing I can add to that list that Google can't surmise. Instead I will be telling you what Google does not know, my story of Firefox and what Firefox has meant to all of us.
Thread beginning with comment 393792
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Beautyful HTML5?
by Carewolf on Tue 10th Nov 2009 11:42 UTC
Member since:

Looking at the link the author is so proud of. I can only recommend not following it, because it is a hideous design and most importantly because it is very wrong.

Just for the reference: Please don't use HTML5 elements that have not been implemented yet. Once <section> is implemented in any browser this example page is going to get rendered differently. If too many pages uses <section> before it is implemented it will mean it can never be implemented without breaking existing pages. So please, only use the few tags that have been implemented like <audio> and <video> and let the rest alone until you have a browser that supports them to test in.

And while HTML5 specifies how to browsers should parse broken HTML, that doesn't mean you should use broken HTML. So please still write valid HTML. A standard for error-correction is not a recommendation for making errors.

Edited 2009-11-10 11:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Beautyful HTML5?
by Kroc on Tue 10th Nov 2009 12:41 in reply to "Beautyful HTML5?"
Kroc Member since:

I'm proud of it because we don't get anywhere by accepting the status quo as good enough. How it looks--I'm not bothered if people don't like it, the graphics are always highly subjective, but the HTML/CSS & PHP are very nicely separated (no IDs, no classes), so I can quite easily reskin the site to anything else just by changing CSS sheets.

As far as HTML5. It is valid HTML5, try it out. I'm helping push others to adopt HTML5 and by that experiment what is right and what is wrong about the spec and help shape it. A spec that nobody has tested out in real life is no good either.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Beautyful HTML5?
by deathshadow on Tue 10th Nov 2009 17:09 in reply to "RE: Beautyful HTML5?"
deathshadow Member since:

I'm helping push others to adopt HTML5 and by that experiment what is right and what is wrong about the spec and help shape it. A spec that nobody has tested out in real life is no good either.

... and that's what I mean up above when talking about using it for experiments, but not production websites. Developing the next generation of code and finding ways to do things better is important. As an experiment it's fine - but let's face it the majority of the world has no interest in the internet being anything more than click on the big blue E, the majority of users won't understand what makes that so special compared to HTML4 since under the hood means jack **** to them... So using it for a production website is akin to the browser sniffing asshats who intentionally block browsers like Opera. (when quite often the pages work just fine if you mask)

Mind you, I'm not convinced HTML5 is all that great an idea anymore. The original idea of simplifying it down has been hijacked by people wanting all these extra tags, many of which (column?!?) are presentational in nature and as such don't even belong in the markup if you are practicing semantics. It's lost it's original mantra and become over the past few years a fat bloated pig ... We've gone from the idea of simplifying down all media types RISC style to 'object' instead of "applet", "embed" etc, etc... to having one for audio, one for video... Undoing all the progress STRICT made.

Not that many developers ever got off their asses and learned to code STRICT - and why you are unlikely to see HTML5 see all that fast an adoption since we've still got asshats out there coding what is for all intents and purposes presentational HTML 3.2 using decade old methods. By the time HTML5 is deployable, we just might get more than five programmers using strict/valid markup/separation of presentation from content.

Reply Parent Score: 3