HTML 5 ...

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

HTML 5 ...

Barry Kintner
Good day -

-- Please do not drop recognition of older (simpler) HTML vocabulary. I find far too many people are over-using CSS etc - not really
knowing or understanding the needs of the visitor. I have even downloaded a page with a CSS file over 300k for a web page of 20k - this is
a practice that is un-acceptable.

-- I find I've been able to re-create business web pages - with all functionality retained - that are 60-90% smaller in file size, by using
so-called 'older' standards. Retain all the old codes that had been usable before (from 3.2-4.x).

-- I've made well over 2000 web pages and find I rarely need the 'latest' code for my audiences. This proposal is NOT a step forward - as I
understand it now.

Thank you

..
Barry Kintner  -  Phoenix, Arizona  USA
..



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML 5 ...

Charles Pritchard-2
Would you enumerate the elements and/or attributes you are concerned about losing?

For example: the longdesc attribute on images has been dropped without compatibility notes nor a practical replacement.

-Charles



On Oct 13, 2011, at 12:35 PM, "Barry Kintner" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Good day -
>
> -- Please do not drop recognition of older (simpler) HTML vocabulary. I find far too many people are over-using CSS etc - not really
> knowing or understanding the needs of the visitor. I have even downloaded a page with a CSS file over 300k for a web page of 20k - this is
> a practice that is un-acceptable.
>
> -- I find I've been able to re-create business web pages - with all functionality retained - that are 60-90% smaller in file size, by using
> so-called 'older' standards. Retain all the old codes that had been usable before (from 3.2-4.x).
>
> -- I've made well over 2000 web pages and find I rarely need the 'latest' code for my audiences. This proposal is NOT a step forward - as I
> understand it now.
>
> Thank you
>
> ..
> Barry Kintner  -  Phoenix, Arizona  USA
> ..
>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: HTML 5 ...

John Foliot - Stanford Online Accessibility Program
Charles Pritchard wrote:
>
> Would you enumerate the elements and/or attributes you are concerned
> about losing?
>
> For example: the longdesc attribute on images has been dropped without
> compatibility notes nor a practical replacement.
>

Minor point of clarification: the status of @longdesc is still
undetermined at this time. There is an open issue (Issue 30 -
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30) which is still before the
Chairs, and currently 3 Change Proposals submitted around that Issue.

In the immortal words of Mark Twain "The report of my death was an
exaggeration" (see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries)

JF


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML 5 ...

T.J. Crowder
In reply to this post by Barry Kintner
Hi,

On 13 October 2011 20:35, Barry Kintner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good day -

-- Please do not drop recognition of older (simpler) HTML vocabulary.

Can you be a bit more specific? You're not giving people much to work with. :-) Are you talking about `font`? `center`? What?
 
I find far too many people are over-using CSS etc - not really
knowing or understanding the needs of the visitor. I have even downloaded a page with a CSS file over 300k for a web page of 20k - this is
a practice that is un-acceptable.

Yes, sometimes people mis-use CSS; other times they don't. That doesn't really have anything to do with the HTML5 specification, though, as far as I can see.
 
-- I find I've been able to re-create business web pages - with all functionality retained - that are 60-90% smaller in file size, by using
so-called 'older' standards. Retain all the old codes that had been usable before (from 3.2-4.x).

Again, like what? Which ones do you need? The people on the list can probably respond helpfully if you call out which specific bits you're concerned about.

If you're really interested in keeping page size down (a worthy goal), and if you haven't already seen it, you might also be interested in Section 8.1.2.4 ("Optional Tags" - http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#optional-tags). Quite a number of start and end tags are optional.

FWIW,
--
T.J. Crowder
Independent Software Engineer
tj / crowder software / com
www / crowder software / com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML 5 ...

ingmar.koch
In reply to this post by Barry Kintner
> -- Please do not drop recognition of older (simpler) HTML vocabulary. I find
> far too many people are over-using CSS etc - not really knowing or
> understanding the needs of the visitor. I have even downloaded a page with a
> CSS file over 300k for a web page of 20k - this is a practice that is
> un-acceptable.
>

I don't think that can be prevented by keeping outdated standards alive. 


<a href="javascript:void(0)" style="font:lighter 10px Verdana, Arial;color:#000000;"> Ingmar Koch | mailto:[hidden email] | http://www.desktoplinuxsummit.org/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML 5 ...

Jordan Clark-4
In reply to this post by Barry Kintner

In response to by Barry Kintner’s email, “HTML 5 ...”
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Oct/0002.html


Dear Barry,

I think that what you are getting at is for the W3C not to “forget” (for lack of a better word!) older (legacy) front-end web design methods – i.e. using the TABLE element for page layouts, FONT elements, etc, etc.

I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Although this is only my interpretation of things (I am a mere contributor to these mailing lists; my word is not authoritative), I am sure most people would agree with me on these two points:

1. The W3C make *recommendations* – they do not “control” what the methods the browser companies can or cannot use to render pages. So, if for example, the W3C say that “the FONT element is *not* be used” (or “deprecated” in W3C-speak), whether developers and browser-vendors listen is another thing.

2. Browser vendors normally try to ensure that when they release a new version, they do not “break” web pages designed prior to this. This is known as backwards compatibility. So the chances of say, Mozilla, Microsoft et. al, suddenly dropping support for the so-called deprecated features is virtually non-existent (well, at least not for a very long time!)

I hope that this clears up some of your concerns!

Jordan Clark
Swansea, United Kingdom

http://www.jdclark.org/
[hidden email]


     
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML 5 ...

Jukka K. Korpela-2
22.10.2011 17:27, Jordan Clark wrote:

> 1. The W3C make *recommendations* – they do not “control” what
 > the methods the browser companies can or cannot use to render pages.
 > So, if for example, the W3C say that “the FONT element is *not* be used”
 > (or “deprecated” in W3C-speak), whether developers and browser-vendors
 > listen is another thing.

Indeed, but there’s more. The HTML5 drafts say that authors must not use
the FONT element, but that just means that a document using it is
non-conforming. This may matter to use if your client or boss has
required conformance to the HTML5 specification (I’m postulating that
there will be such a spec). But without such external requirements,
nobody can force authors not to use the FONT element. Well, if browsers
stopped supporting it, that would be different, but it won’t happen.

And the W3C isn’t even trying to make browser vendors drop FONT support,
for example. Quite the contrary. The HTML5 drafts require that the FONT
element be supported by browsers. They also define its meaning, even
more accurately than previous specifications—in particular, it specifies
the mapping of FONT SIZE values in HTML to font-size property values in CSS.

In addition to requiring continued to support to features declared
deprecated in HTML 4,01 (and usually non-conforming in HTML5 drafts),
the HTML5 drafts even require browser support to features that were
never part of any HTML specification but have been widely implemented
and deployed, such as <embed>.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: HTML 5 ...

Jordan Clark-4

Dear Yucca,

You make a good point there. However, I tend to find that the web authors who prefer the TABLE/FONT route tend not to care much for validation!

However, I agree with what you are saying… in fact, Hixie has gone out of his way to incorporate the legacy techniques which are used in the “real world”, like it or not (e.g. the EMBED element, as you mentioned).

That is what I like so much about HTML5 spec: it has adopted a “pave the cowpaths” approach – the exact opposite attitude of the now-defunct XHTML2 spec.


Jordan Clark
Swansea, United Kingdom

http://www.jdclark.org/
[hidden email]


PS: I just wanted to say that your website has helped me a lot over the years, and is one of my regular sources of reference, time and time again. I would say keep up the good work; however, think you’ve done enough already! Thanks for that!