On 19 Aug 2010, at 11:08, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/content-models.html#annotations-for-assistive-technology-products-aria
>
> However, with the new outline/sectioning algorithm, you can potentially go
> well over the classic h1-h6 number of heading levels, while the A
David Storey wrote:
maybe, but any is not backwards compatible so not really an option to
use any time soon, and is (AFAICT) a Mozilla only extension that is not
in any specification. As it isn't even in any spec, even if it does get
accepted by the CSS working group, it will take ages to be
On 19/08/2010 11:51, Rob Crowther wrote:
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Also worth pointing out that, to my knowledge, no AT/screen reader
currently supports it either, so this may cause some issues for these
users at present.
Similarly the native semantics of elements like header and nav don't yet
h
On 19 Aug 2010, at 11:51, Rob Crowther wrote:
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
On 19/08/2010 10:13, David Storey wrote:
So the section or article elements could be taken out of context
and
displayed elsewhere but retain their headings.
You could, but I still use the h1 to h2 inside the sections
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
On 19/08/2010 10:13, David Storey wrote:
So the section or article elements could be taken out of context and
displayed elsewhere but retain their headings.
You could, but I still use the h1 to h2 inside the sections because no
browser uses the sectioning algorithm for
On 19/08/2010 10:13, David Storey wrote:
So the section or article elements could be taken out of context and
displayed elsewhere but retain their headings.
You could, but I still use the h1 to h2 inside the sections because no
browser uses the sectioning algorithm for thing like styling.
Al
On 18 Aug 2010, at 23:40, Rob Crowther wrote:
On 18/08/10 17:51, tee wrote:
This example doesn't look very semantic to me :-) Is there a tag
that can replace or substitute the use of headings?
If you properly nest your and elements then you
can use just everywhere:
Monday
Fi
On 18/08/10 17:51, tee wrote:
This example doesn't look very semantic to me :-) Is there a tag that can
replace or substitute the use of headings?
If you properly nest your and elements then you can
use just everywhere:
Monday
First post
...
Second post
...
>
> For example, an article could have a header and footer:
>
>
>
>
> Article title
> August 12, 2010
>
>Article copy here. Article copy here. Ar
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM, designer <
desig...@gwelanmor-internet.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I have 'played' with the simple elements and I like them. I actually wanted
> to have a 'page' element (or wrapper) since that is an element that is used
> an awful lot, but I never got anywhere with
class names will not give
you that understanding. It's a mental leap.
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Tony Crockford
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:57 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Getting m
> Take a look at the js, it's pretty simple.
> However, it is true that you are leaving yourself open. At Yahoo, we treat
> IE6 as an a-level browser. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/
> So you aren't going to see me push to change Yahoo! Finance to HTML5 tags.
> However, I have been d
On 13 Aug 2010, at 18:51, Ted Drake wrote:
> You need to build a site to learn HTML5 semantics, it's like the old days of
> hybrid table-based layouts. 7 years ago you really needed to ditch tables to
> truly understand CSS.
Are you suggesting that to switch to HTML5 we should avoid the use of
Re: [WSG] Getting my feet wet in HTML5
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM, designer
wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I have 'played' with the simple elements and I like them. I actually wanted
> to have a 'page' element (or wrapper) since that is an element that is used
> an awf
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:11 PM, designer
wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I have 'played' with the simple elements and I like them. I actually wanted
> to have a 'page' element (or wrapper) since that is an element that is used
> an awful lot, but I never got anywhere with folk accepting it. For a simple
> exam
ge -
From: "Tom Livingston"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Getting my feet wet in HTML5
[snip]
I actually have this book. And read it cover to cover. The problem
comes when I actually have to BUILD something using these elements...
guess I'll re
rg
Subject: Re: [WSG] Getting my feet wet in HTML5
> Sorry,, Corrected Structure:
>
>
>
> Header here
>
>
>
>
> Content wit
> Sorry,, Corrected Structure:
>
>
>
> Header here
>
>
>
>
> Content with an H2, a UL, Ps and As and a
> picture
>
>
>
dardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Livingston
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:59 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Getting my feet wet in HTML5
> Ignoring that this isn't using HTML5 elements, but using it as an
> analogy - via the classe
OK, I have decided to step back from HTML5 till I "get it" better, but
in keeping with the idea of this thread, I'd like some feedback on the
following structure:
Header here
> Ignoring that this isn't using HTML5 elements, but using it as an
> analogy - via the classes and IDs - could this be improved upon? Is
> there a place for (s) here? Did I get the element concepts
> right?
>
> Thanks again...
Sorry,, Corrected Structure:
> Just to add onto Chris' email.
>
> This sounds like a good place to suggest people purchase Jeremy
> Keith's book HTML5 for Web Designers. In it he actually describes the
> semantics of the new tags and gives defines when and how to use tags
> like etc. If you have questions
> like these de
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Chris Knowles wrote:
>> a 'div' definitely has meaning, ie: it is a division of one part of
>> the page, from another; whether it is used for other behaviour,
>> doesn't preclude it from from its original meaning.
>
> but when everything is in a div, div ceases to
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Chris Knowles wrote:
>> a 'div' definitely has meaning, ie: it is a division of one part of
>> the page, from another; whether it is used for other behaviour,
>> doesn't preclude it from from its original meaning.
>
> but when everything is in a div, div ceases to
a 'div' definitely has meaning, ie: it is a division of one part of
the page, from another; whether it is used for other behaviour,
doesn't preclude it from from its original meaning.
but when everything is in a div, div ceases to have much meaning. It
simply says theres a bunch of things on the
> Tom, I think the answer to that is semantics - div has no meaning. Id's are
> there for you to manipulate the look and behaviour, the tags themselves
> offer a way for third parties to glean meaning from the page. e.g you could
> build an overview of a page by grabbing the first bit of text insid
Tom, I think the answer to that is semantics - div has no meaning. Id's
are there for you to manipulate the look and behaviour, the tags
themselves offer a way for third parties to glean meaning from the page.
e.g you could build an overview of a page by grabbing the first bit of
text inside ea
List,
Here's a theory question ( i think) for ya. I'm working on a layout,
and am attempting to use and . Properly, I believe.
But as I look at my layout, I'm thinking "ok, i'll put an ID on this
section, and one on that section..." and I stopped and thought "Uh
oh... it's the same as i've always
28 matches
Mail list logo
