-
200610 Nov
Posted in W3C
It’s all gone a bit quiet round here… sorry about that, but there’s not a lot of movement on CSS3, and I know the authors here are quite busy personally.
Anyway, potentially big news is that the WHATWG are asking for developer feedback on HTML5.
I’m still wading through the document, but of what I’ve read so far, of most interest to CSS fanatics will be a group of new, semantic tags; for example
, Of course these aren’t directly related to CSS3, but it should help save a lot of classes, ids and tag soup if implemented – and that’s the key. Even if it turns into a recommendation, how long until HTML5 is supported in IE – if at all. Many questions, many variables; but stay positive, and give your opinion.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
-
Comments
-
01.
HTML5 will definitly be cool Peter, that’s why I’ve already registered html5.info, and will be starting a similar site like this on that domain once i get some other stuff sorted out :)
-
02.
I didn’t quite get through the whole document, but the new ‘header’, ‘section’ and ‘nav’ tags should be very useful, I use those div names all the time.
Let’s hope the browsers pick up HTML5 faster than its picking up CSS3!
-Tim -
03.
Akhros says:Comment » November 18th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I thought that there won’t be any new versions of HTML. The new standards will point to XHTML. Am I wrong with that?
-
04.
There have been a number of complaints about XHTML and the W3C, including the fact that XHTML isn’t correctly supported by some browsers and XHTML2.0 isn’t backwards-compatible, that it doesn’t reflect the needs of website owners, and that the W3C takes too long to decide on new standards. Also, the take-up of XHTML has not been as widespread as was hoped for; many sites still use HTML.
For those reasons (and many more), the WHATWG has proposed HTML5, which will introduce a number of new features to build on the existing HTML specification.
Well-formatted HTML (with a Strict DTD) is just as good as XHTML in it’s current incarnation. Whichever you want to use is up to your personal preference; I myself am tending to move back to HTML after using XHTML for a while.
-
05.
Meant to add: You’re right in the fact that the W3C doesn’t intend to develop HTML any further; however, the W3C standards are only recommendations, not binding regulations; anyone could come up with rival recommendations, and it depends on the browser developers to implement them.
-
06.
Peter said: “You’re right in the fact that the W3C doesn’t intend to develop HTML any further; ”
Which is not right. There are new charters being discussed these days for continuing the work on HTML. Some of the discussions have happened on W3C www-archive mailing list.
-
07.
-
08.
IE6 and IE7 seems to pick up HTML5, i have tested and works correctly with some of the sites i have done
Im not sure about the older versions of IE,
Anybody have any information about this?
-
09.
Peter said: “You’re right in the fact that the W3C doesn’t intend to develop HTML any further; ”
Which is not right. There are new charters being discussed these days for continuing the work on HTML. Some of the discussions have happened on W3C www-archive mailing list.
-
10.
At the time I wrote this, the W3C hadn’t yet announced that they were going to work on the HTML5 spec.
-
11.
Logan says:Comment » September 12th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I have been using XHTML for some time and I find it more than sufficient. What are peoples’ problems with it? Why switch back to HTML?
-
12.
i’ve been using xhtml for past 2 years and i didnt find much difficulties moving to html5 (except for figuring out the DOCTYPE and meta tags).
there is no major difference between html4 & xhtml except for the closing slash part. but for html5, it accepts tags with with or without closing slashes. and when html5 is combined with css3 it provides vast number of features that are not found in xhtml & html4.
-
01.
