tag:wedge.org,2012-03-16:recentWedge - Features: Forward thinking2024-03-29T09:23:00ZLive information from Wedge
Wedge
WedgeRe: HTML5 supportQuote from Harz-FEAR on February 6th, 2013, 08:34 PM
2/ I had the status buttons (next to user names) included as divs inside a header tag. Three solutions: (a) tell HTML5 to fuck off, (b) give up on the h4 tag and use a div instead, (b) turn pixelicons into a span, and all its sub-classes into 'i' tags. I considered solution (a) for a long time, then switched to solution (c) as of now.
That's because div is a block, span an inline element. This was already invalid in HTML4, I think.
A div can behave as an inline element, and a span as a block element... It's all about the display status. HTML5 reformulated that to enable inline elements to hold block elements, because of the tags' inconstant nature.
Then they reverted their decision years later. Leaving us programmers in trouble with their stupid validator.
The only thing I can say: if it works on every browser, who gives a damn that it's not valid HTML5..?
Heck, even the HTML5 standard isn't exactly originated by the W3C... Look up the WHATWG group. They keep fighting each other over these differences.
Quote
Did they really do that? Why divide standards into HTML and XHTML in the first place? Just seems an odd thing to do :lol:
XHTML's intention was to be a subset of XML, because at the time, XML was the thing-to-do. It was a noble thing. But now there are other transmission methods like JSON which are just as popular, and XML is not exactly everywhere. XHTML 2 was in the works for a long time, and IIRC someone got bored and decided to 'fork' HTML4 into HTML5, when the W3C had decided earlier that there would never be another HTML standard, only XHTML. HTML5 got popular (if only because the only doctype you have to remember is <!DOCTYPE html>), and the W3C 'changed their mind' and took the WHATWG's proposal and made it into an official W3C standard. Then started the wars between WHATWG and W3C to determine the 'little details' that nobody cared about. Seriously, there's ARIA for accessibility, for accessibility-minded developers, why do they have to bother us with <img alt> when one could just use an ARIA tag, or even better, <img title>? Why force everyone to provide an alt param, even when they don't have anything to put into them...?
It's all fucked up really.
Again: what matters is that it works on your browser. This is what I care about, personally. If a page is valid, all for the best. But if it's invalid because of a policy change, I just won't go the extra mile to please them. What do we owe them..?]]>Naohttps://wedge.org/profile/Nao/2013-02-06T20:20:13Z2013-02-06T20:20:13Ztag:wedge.org,2013-02-06:msg-285726Re: HTML5 supportQuote from Nao on February 6th, 2013, 07:00 PM
2/ I had the status buttons (next to user names) included as divs inside a header tag. Three solutions: (a) tell HTML5 to fuck off, (b) give up on the h4 tag and use a div instead, (b) turn pixelicons into a span, and all its sub-classes into 'i' tags. I considered solution (a) for a long time, then switched to solution (c) as of now.
That's because div is a block, span an inline element. This was already invalid in HTML4, I think.
Quote
So... You can see that this very page, will now validate. No reason to cry victory, though... I'm sure that next month, the W3C will find something new to fuck with us. Wanna bet they'll suddenly say that we all need to use "/>" closers on self-closing tags again...?
Did they really do that? Why divide standards into HTML and XHTML in the first place? Just seems an odd thing to do :lol:]]>Harz-FEARhttps://wedge.org/profile/Harz-FEAR/2013-02-06T19:34:01Z2013-02-06T19:34:01Ztag:wedge.org,2013-02-06:msg-285725Re: HTML5 support - My love story with HTML5 is long over. Back in the days, it was all about freedom. They got part of the XHTML crowd back because of that: XHTML was becoming to be super-boring with its lack of flexibility. So, they said "no alt params on img tags, more freedom to include tags into other tags (e.g. include a div include an anchor), things like that..." I used to love them. I was so quick to change all of the templates to use HTML5. I was happy. I really, really loved what they did with the standard. Then, step by step, their "design by committee" proceeded to cancel all of these advances. At the same time, it started to simply NOT matter that a site was HTML5 valid... The less powers they give me, the less responsibilities I'll give them. I just don't care about HTML5 validation much these days. That's pretty simple... Opera has a built-in validator link in their context menu. Opera keeps crashing on me. Chrome doesn't have such a link. Chrome doesn't crash on me as often. So I'm using Chrome these days. And I don't see the validator link. And I'm not tempted to click it, that way.
- Anyway... The lack of validation in this page was due to two things: 1/ <img src="..."> is no longer valid. Since this summer, they reverted their two-year old decision to allow for img tags to remove the empty alt parameter. Three solutions: (a) tell HTML5 to fuck off, (b) restore all 'alt' tags manually in all files, (c) do a small ob_sessrewrite-time replacement of <img> to <img alt> (except for <img> tags that ALREADY have a non-empty alt param, because that would break validation again...). I choose solution (a) personally, but I'll take solution (c) for now, because. Well, right now it's a preg_replace and I really could replace it with a str_replace and instead ensure that all img tags in Wedge start with either <img src...> or <img alt...> (ensuring that I only modify the first occurrence), it would be ten times faster, but right now I don't care. 2/ I had the status buttons (next to user names) included as divs inside a header tag. Three solutions: (a) tell HTML5 to fuck off, (b) give up on the h4 tag and use a div instead, (b) turn pixelicons into a span, and all its sub-classes into 'i' tags. I considered solution (a) for a long time, then switched to solution (c) as of now.
So... You can see that this very page, will now validate. No reason to cry victory, though... I'm sure that next month, the W3C will find something new to fuck with us. Wanna bet they'll suddenly say that we all need to use "/>" closers on self-closing tags again...?]]>Naohttps://wedge.org/profile/Nao/2013-02-06T18:00:09Z2013-02-06T18:00:09Ztag:wedge.org,2013-02-06:msg-285723Re: jQuery supportThese people probably wouldn't have noticed the bug without my report, though... ;)
But I understand how it is to read something and to immediately be upset because you realize you're concerned and you didn't catch it in the first place.
I'm thinking that the reason for the bug in the first place is that v2.0 was simplified by removing all IE hacks, but this particular one was marked as an IE hack when really it was a generic hack.]]>Naohttps://wedge.org/profile/Nao/2013-02-06T16:52:08Z2013-02-06T16:52:08Ztag:wedge.org,2013-02-06:msg-285720Re: HTML5 support Yes, I'm sure there are errors. But hey, it's alpha software, with new commits most days, there ARE going to be issues, especially when using a tool that by its own admission is probably buggy, against a standard that won't be a standard for another year at least if ever...]]>Arantorhttps://wedge.org/profile/Arantor/2013-02-06T01:16:31Z2013-02-06T01:16:31Ztag:wedge.org,2013-02-06:msg-285712