Re: Cleaning House

Ok, let's say we do this.  Now an author decides it's time to upgrade  
their site to HTML5.  They begin (naturally) by adding the doctype to  
the top of their HTML file.  The entire site turns into a complete  
disaster area because half of the tags they used have been eliminated  
and the browser is being draconian about ignoring those tags.  Author  
rolls eyes, yanks the doctype, and forgets about HTML5.

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)

On May 2, 2007, at 9:48 PM, Lee Roberts wrote:

>
> The specification _does not_ need to continue to use deprecated tags.
> Standards change and old standards are grandfathered, but new  
> standards
> update and replace older standards.  HTML5 is a new standard; it  
> should not
> be a rehash of the same stuff that's been a thorn in our sides  
> since the
> beginning.
>
> HTML4 is a poorly written standard, but was a best attempt.  I've  
> taught
> standards-based Web design at a local technical college.  I've  
> faced more
> questions than I care to admit from many confused students.  Many  
> of the
> questions posed dealt with deprecated elements and heading tags.   
> Heading
> tags lead many novice developers to think that they can have as  
> high as h12
> on a page.  The semantics of heading tags are confusing to the  
> novice.  Even
> _accessibility experts_ have made the error.
>
> I've worked with fire safety, building, electrical, plumbing, and
> asset/property protection codes.  Each time a new set of standards  
> come out,
> they are based upon new technologies and discovered needs.  Existing
> buildings are never required to comply with the new standard until new
> construction or remodeling is performed.  Depending upon how much  
> of the
> building is remodeled determines if the entire building is required to
> comply with the new standard or just the newly remodeled section.
>
> What I get out of all the chatter about deprecated tags being  
> supported
> FOREVER is somewhere along the line of people don't know how to make
> standards.  This is evident in HTML4.x and XHTML1.x with deprecated  
> tags.
> If we're smart and we will set up a DOCTYPE HTML5 which people can  
> use, then
> Browser Vendors can easily support the author's desired standard  
> set.  If
> the author fails to use DOCTYPE HTML5 then Browser Vendors can take  
> the
> assumption that they need to fall back to previous standard support  
> mode.
>
> This falls in line with IEEE and other standards bodies.  Backward
> compatibility still exists, but we are no longer required to deal with
> deprecated codes.  Eventually, instead of NEVER, we will have a  
> standard
> that works.
>
> Browser Vendors would need to build support for the new standard on  
> top of
> their support for older standards.  Yet, this does not mean we need to
> continue support for deprecated tags or tags we NOW realize we  
> don't need.
> I foresee HTML6 getting rid of some of the new stuff being  
> submitted for
> consideration in the HTML5 standard.
>
> <b> and <i> were replaced by <strong> and <em> for their semantic  
> values
> versus the presentational values of <b> and <i>.  <u> was  
> deprecated or
> shall we say replaced by CSS text-decoration.  <font> tag certainly  
> has no
> use because CSS replaced that tag.
>
> As I stated previously, we need only one standard.  Previous HTML  
> standard
> sets had multiple standards.  For example, HTML4 Strict, HTML4  
> Loose, and so
> forth.  There's no need for this mishmash.  Doing this again simply  
> means
> the editors must create multiple sets of standards documents.  This  
> then
> causes problems for authors and Browser Vendors alike; they're  
> required to
> determine what was really meant.
>
> One standard with a firm, easy to understand, and yes "for dummies"
> instruction set will make it easy for the new designer as well as  
> for the
> old designer.  We need to remember that we're developing the  
> standard as a
> guide for the new designer as much as for the old designer.  When  
> we realize
> this, I'm sure we can come to standard that is easy for everyone to
> understand.
>
> I don't know who WHATWG is.  As far as I know it is a group of  
> people who
> didn't like W3's processes.  As far as I understand, the people of  
> this
> group decided to go about their own path and create a new  
> standard.  This
> only causes more problems because Browser Vendors, Editor Vendors,  
> and Web
> designers can now follow two camps.  The first camp follows the  
> WHATWG.  The
> second camp follows W3.  Seems like a lot of confusion to me.
>
> Regards,
> Lee Roberts
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 04:56:12 UTC