WC3 Ready to Start on HTML 6.0
I wonder if they'll bring back the blink tag...
Thursday, March 8, 2007 by Zoomba | Discussion: WinCustomize News
To the average Internet user, the web is a largely unchanging thing. Aside from prettier pictures and some more interactive sites, to the layman the technology used today to display a page is more or less the same as it was back in the mid 90's. The idea that the underlying language used to build and display websites changes would seem pretty silly to most. But to anyone who has tried to follow the ebb and flow of Internet standards knows that's not the case.
Today, we have the HTML 4.01 standard for defining what tags do what and how they should be written. Then there's XHTML (considered HTML 5.0 by some) which is an attempt to start bringing in more XML standards complaint methods to web page building. Well, the World Wide Web Consortium, the folks responsible for shepherding the HTML standard along, aren't asleep at the wheel. This week they relaunched the HTML Working Group and tasked them with with drafting a new HTML 6.0 standard.
Read more on what the 6.0 standard will become, and a little bit of recent history on the battle over web standards at BetaNews.
Cyberworld
Reply #2 Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:51 PM
Reply #2 Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:51 PM
Why can't they just combine elements from XML and Html and make browsers to accept the same code langs i wonder...What is CSS2 btw? I'm a bit behind, i use plain CSS for the moment. 
PS: Em i think you have something wrong in thread title, i think it's W3C.
PS: Em i think you have something wrong in thread title, i think it's W3C.
thomassen
Reply #4 Thursday, March 8, 2007 6:47 PM
That's XHTML.
The second version of CSS. And what do you mean by "plain CSS"?
That is correct.
I read somewhere, that someone was working on an HTML 5 standard. It wasn't the W3C doing it. And the HTML5 the spoke of there wasn't XHTML, it was another version of HTML markup. None of the XML rules. Trying to find the link, but I think it'd on my other comp...
Reply #4 Thursday, March 8, 2007 6:47 PM
Why can't they just combine elements from XML and Html and make browsers to accept the same code langs i wonder.
That's XHTML.
What is CSS2 btw? I'm a bit behind, i use plain CSS for the moment.
The second version of CSS. And what do you mean by "plain CSS"?
PS: Em i think you have something wrong in thread title, i think it's W3C.
That is correct.
I read somewhere, that someone was working on an HTML 5 standard. It wasn't the W3C doing it. And the HTML5 the spoke of there wasn't XHTML, it was another version of HTML markup. None of the XML rules. Trying to find the link, but I think it'd on my other comp...
NightmareGuardian
Reply #5 Friday, March 9, 2007 9:17 PM
I disagree. I find it fairly easy to make it all identical across browsers. Of course, I use a cross use of CSS and HTML. Although CSS is said to completely eliminate HTML, I find that a combination is best.
If your very specific about what you want, everything tends to mesh well. The latest problem I had was actually with Firefox, where it wouldn't accept one of the marquee options for my matrix look (and I didn't want to use Javascript for those who didn't allow it). Getting my multiple sound media player to work also posed a few challenges.
Some new standards would be nice... But it's like in 4 years?!? The final days of 2010? Ugh, that's quite a ways away... but I guess it'll come quickly.
Reply #5 Friday, March 9, 2007 9:17 PM
because other than in very limited cases it's almost impossible to make them look identical
I disagree. I find it fairly easy to make it all identical across browsers. Of course, I use a cross use of CSS and HTML. Although CSS is said to completely eliminate HTML, I find that a combination is best.
If your very specific about what you want, everything tends to mesh well. The latest problem I had was actually with Firefox, where it wouldn't accept one of the marquee options for my matrix look (and I didn't want to use Javascript for those who didn't allow it). Getting my multiple sound media player to work also posed a few challenges.
Some new standards would be nice... But it's like in 4 years?!? The final days of 2010? Ugh, that's quite a ways away... but I guess it'll come quickly.
thomassen
Reply #6 Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:04 AM
CSS is not suppose to eliminate HTML. They are two very different things.
HTML defines the structure of the document, while CSS defines the layout. It's just that back in the 90's people started to add sorts of non-structural elements to HTML.
And I'd strongly suggest that you switch to complete separation of HTML and CSS because it's much easier to maintain in the long run. And more importantly, when you create sites for accessibility, print, mobiles etc, you don't want the HTML to interfere with any of the layout. Loads of more reasons, but I'm already getting a bit off topic.
Yes, it's not impossible at all. But then again, you don't really want to make a pixel identical website anyway. The best website is a website that degrades gracefully according to browser capabilities.
Has to be adopted by a great number of people and browsers supporting it. Look at CSS 2.1, still a working draft after all these years it's been a proposial and people using it.
Reply #6 Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:04 AM
Of course, I use a cross use of CSS and HTML. Although CSS is said to completely eliminate HTML, I find that a combination is best.
CSS is not suppose to eliminate HTML. They are two very different things.
HTML defines the structure of the document, while CSS defines the layout. It's just that back in the 90's people started to add sorts of non-structural elements to HTML.
And I'd strongly suggest that you switch to complete separation of HTML and CSS because it's much easier to maintain in the long run. And more importantly, when you create sites for accessibility, print, mobiles etc, you don't want the HTML to interfere with any of the layout. Loads of more reasons, but I'm already getting a bit off topic.
disagree. I find it fairly easy to make it all identical across browsers.
Yes, it's not impossible at all. But then again, you don't really want to make a pixel identical website anyway. The best website is a website that degrades gracefully according to browser capabilities.
Some new standards would be nice... But it's like in 4 years?!? The final days of 2010? Ugh, that's quite a ways away... but I guess it'll come quickly.
Has to be adopted by a great number of people and browsers supporting it. Look at CSS 2.1, still a working draft after all these years it's been a proposial and people using it.
Cyberworld
Reply #7 Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:40 AM
Oups...honest typo...
Well nothing much, it's just CSS 1.0.
True...this works very good. CSS for layout elements and HTML for everything else. But that's for small/personal sites. Not big sites IMO.
Reply #7 Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:40 AM
That's XHTML.
Oups...honest typo...
And what do you mean by "plain CSS"?
Well nothing much, it's just CSS 1.0.
Although CSS is said to completely eliminate HTML, I find that a combination is best.
True...this works very good. CSS for layout elements and HTML for everything else. But that's for small/personal sites. Not big sites IMO.
thomassen
Reply #8 Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:43 AM
No, I meant: combination of HTML and XML as you proposed is XHTML.
You mean that big sites don't benefit from layer separation? It's big sites that should use that and will benefit the most.
Reply #8 Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:43 AM
That's XHTML.
Oups...honest typo...
Oups...honest typo...
No, I meant: combination of HTML and XML as you proposed is XHTML.
rue...this works very good. CSS for layout elements and HTML for everything else. But that's for small/personal sites. Not big sites IMO.
You mean that big sites don't benefit from layer separation? It's big sites that should use that and will benefit the most.
Cyberworld
Reply #10 Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:58 AM
Hmm...haven't designed any big sites, but i think it would be difficult. Dunno though...maybe you have more experience with these things.
Reply #10 Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:58 AM
It's big sites that should use that and will benefit the most.
Hmm...haven't designed any big sites, but i think it would be difficult. Dunno though...maybe you have more experience with these things.
thomassen
Reply #11 Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:27 PM
Reply #11 Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:27 PM
A big website with many pages will benefit from layer separation so that it's easier to manage it. If you have 50 pages, or more even, you don't want to iterate through each page to update your layout. That's why you put everything into one external CSS file.
And if you have a big site you most likely want to make your content accessible to as big an audience as possible. So you want to cater for normal web browsers, people with accessibility problems, mobile phone access perhaps (the web isn't just for computers any more. even TVs access the internet) and you might want to provide a customized print layout to match your company profile and remove any element not related to the content such as the navigational links etc.
If you where to do this with the layout defined inside you HTML then you'd have to create a page for each of these scenarios. Something which will cause more time to be spent and as well as bandwidth.
If you separate the layout from the content completely all you need is one HTML file for each page and a set of CSS files which the browser will choose from according to it's needs. Screen readers will load your aural CSS file, moble devices will load CSS designed specificity for small screens and when you print you get the special print layout.
You have then removed the need for multiple pages for the same content, whilst modularise your design into smaller manage pieces. Additionally the CSS files will be cached normally by the user agents so you will save even more bandwidth.
Separating layout from content, as well as behaviour (javascript) isn't any harder that old tag soup. It's just different. But it's benefit hugely outweighs not using it. Particularly as the site grows.
And if you have a big site you most likely want to make your content accessible to as big an audience as possible. So you want to cater for normal web browsers, people with accessibility problems, mobile phone access perhaps (the web isn't just for computers any more. even TVs access the internet) and you might want to provide a customized print layout to match your company profile and remove any element not related to the content such as the navigational links etc.
If you where to do this with the layout defined inside you HTML then you'd have to create a page for each of these scenarios. Something which will cause more time to be spent and as well as bandwidth.
If you separate the layout from the content completely all you need is one HTML file for each page and a set of CSS files which the browser will choose from according to it's needs. Screen readers will load your aural CSS file, moble devices will load CSS designed specificity for small screens and when you print you get the special print layout.
You have then removed the need for multiple pages for the same content, whilst modularise your design into smaller manage pieces. Additionally the CSS files will be cached normally by the user agents so you will save even more bandwidth.
Separating layout from content, as well as behaviour (javascript) isn't any harder that old tag soup. It's just different. But it's benefit hugely outweighs not using it. Particularly as the site grows.
Cyberworld
Reply #12 Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:13 PM
Reply #12 Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:13 PM
Oh i see now. Thank you for that enlighting perspective of things.
Thank you for that enlighting perspective of things. Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Thursday, March 8, 2007 3:19 PM
FF2 isn't exactly perfect either. It was suppose to be 100% CSS2 compliant - but it's not, and while generally better off than IE7 there are still some oddities that crop up here and there - like the "background-color" area behind linked images.
Why is it so hard for them to make 100% compatible browsers