Re: [whatwg] Geolocation API Proposal
Aaron Boodman wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Krzysztof Żelechowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The intersection of this interface with HTML is empty and it will always be because it does not hook on anything to declare. It qualifies as a browser extension. How is it different than the HTML5 database API? It isn't. See http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2008/02/19/bloaty-parts-of-the-whatwg- html5-specification-that-should-be-removed/ In particular, see Ian Hickson's comment. He already acknoledged that this stuff doesn't belong in the HTML specification, and the only reason that the current HTML 5 spec has so much junk in it is because nobody else is writing seperate specs for these features. Regards, Brian
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5 vs. XHTML 2.0
James Graham wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
How should advertisements be marked up?
It's worth considering that an advert element (or banner
or whatever you decide to call it) would just cause style
rules like advert {display:none;} to become widespread (e.g.
by integration into Adblock and equivalent). Therefore I
can't see this type of markup being used by most advertisers.
Exactly. Right now it is very difficult to build a user agent that
display advertisements in a fashion other than what the advertiser
intends. Advertisements are marked up in many different, incompatible
ways. If a simple, easy-to-implement mechanism for marking up
advertisements was standardized and deployed, then building a web
browser with good support for advertisements would be much easier.
If there was an advert element or equivalent, then its use would
quickly become a mandatory accessibility requirement, and its use would
pretty much be required by any site built by anybody with any money to
lose. Similarly, any jurisdiction with truth in advertising laws would
also require the use of such a construct.
However, I don't recommend an advert element. A role='advertisement'
attribute would be better, because then it could be applied to CSS
files, script files, flash content, images, video, etc.; then a smart
web browser wouldn't download that stuff at all if the user didn't want
to see it, or it could prioritize the downloading/display of other
content higher than that of advertisements.
Ian, in your analysis of existing web content, did you find many
instances of advertising?
- Brian
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5 vs. XHTML 2.0
Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Henri Sivonen wrote: Anyway, I do think it's a problem for styling, automatic content extraction and non-CSS presentation that HTML lacks the markup for indicating which parts of the page are content proper and which are navigation and other chrome. Therefore, a footer element for isolating navigation and legal stuff from content would make sense. (Already suggested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Aug/0229.html at the end of the message.) I hope the nav, footer, and article elements help this case. How should advertisements be marked up? - Brian
Re: [whatwg] My case for Ruby-elements
Michel Fortin wrote: Le 2007-08-13 à 12:25, Krištof Želechovski a écrit : The text is not interlaced but it is vertically synchronized in order that you can know which passage in your language corresponds to which passage in the other language.. I don't think Ruby markup to be appropriate here. But I can see how reading effectively such a document could be difficult on a screen reader. Like Michel said, Ruby markup isn't appropriate for this use case. Ruby text is designed to be used to provide pronunciation and disambiguation cues for logographic languages, especially Japanese and Chinese. If you are not dealing with a logographic language, then generally Ruby annotations are not for you. Phoneme-by-phoneme or word-for-word transliterations (e.g. Latin transliteration of Thai words) might also be an appropriate use for Ruby text. But, translations and transliterations that are not word-for-word are not what Ruby markup is designed for. Regards, Brian
