With the exception of the things listed under Interactivity and maybe ‘Inline semantic elements’, I have absolutely no use for any of the other elements. Perhaps that’s because I’m an application developer and not a writer. While I see the practical application of those extra tags, they seem kind of niche-y to me.
For me, the beauty of the new block level elements like section and header and nav is how they apply to CSS and JavaScript. Currently we have to use a ton of div elements to achieve this structure. But, that means we have to do a lot of "style this div and that div, but not that other div" in CSS. Rather, being able to say, "style section elements," would be nice, because it would prevent us from having to make the exceptions.
That, and there are practical applications for browser makers, too. For example, a browser made for small-screen devices like a cellphone might automatically paginate based on section elements to simply the user experience (less scrolling).
More semantic elements is generally a good thing, I think, and it doesn’t do any harm to those who truly have no use for them.
I’m with you Jeff, looking forward to this, whenever it may come. Looks like a lot of things that help the applications guys - like built-in validation - and a lot of things that recognize that a web page is typically a type of document, and allows you to treat it as such.
Niche-y would be all the time and effort spent on mathM or some other esoteric flotsam rather than working on giving real world developers tools they needed years ago.
001 // James Asher // 08.15.2007 // 11:01 PM
With the exception of the things listed under Interactivity and maybe ‘Inline semantic elements’, I have absolutely no use for any of the other elements. Perhaps that’s because I’m an application developer and not a writer. While I see the practical application of those extra tags, they seem kind of niche-y to me.
002 // Jeff Croft // 08.16.2007 // 1:49 AM
For me, the beauty of the new block level elements like
sectionandheaderandnavis how they apply to CSS and JavaScript. Currently we have to use a ton ofdivelements to achieve this structure. But, that means we have to do a lot of "style thisdivand thatdiv, but not that otherdiv" in CSS. Rather, being able to say, "stylesectionelements," would be nice, because it would prevent us from having to make the exceptions.That, and there are practical applications for browser makers, too. For example, a browser made for small-screen devices like a cellphone might automatically paginate based on
sectionelements to simply the user experience (less scrolling).More semantic elements is generally a good thing, I think, and it doesn’t do any harm to those who truly have no use for them.
003 // Baxter // 08.16.2007 // 8:47 AM
I’m with you Jeff, looking forward to this, whenever it may come. Looks like a lot of things that help the applications guys - like built-in validation - and a lot of things that recognize that a web page is typically a type of document, and allows you to treat it as such.
Niche-y would be all the time and effort spent on mathM or some other esoteric flotsam rather than working on giving real world developers tools they needed years ago.
004 // Keri Henare // 08.16.2007 // 11:36 AM
My favourite of the new HTML5 elements is
.Seriously, HTML5 has some strong points but XHTML2 is for the most part my preferred option going forward.
005 // Keri Henare // 08.16.2007 // 11:40 AM
Bah, killed my joke. It’s supposed to have said <kitchensink>. Worked fine in preview :(