My understanding of the semantics of and vs. and is
that the former indicate a stress, emphasis, offset or importance that
would be expressed verbally, if reading aloud.
On the other hand, the and tags indicate stress, emphasis, offset
or importance that is visual or typographic.
I frequent
For example:
Tip: You should always use the most semantic element!
Oops, is for inputs, so that's not right! Should I use a
heading? Doesn't seem right either. Is this a case for ? The
specification doesn't mention labels under the definition.
Is there a semantic element that can be used
It is currently difficult to control the visibility of the UI (e.g. little
arrows, spinners, etc) on new input types like datetime, number, range,
color, etc.
It seems that many developers want to use the semantic attributes, but need
to be able to hide the little arrows for various reasons, and s
er eventually
fades into hopeless acceptance because once something goes in to the
draft, it is set in stone forever and for all time.
Ok, so 8 is both hyperbolic and in the future, but a lot of people
seem to think that this is where we are headed. Personally, I'm not
angry about this and I&#x
uch prefer the current behavior of Firefox
(tested 9 and 10) which does validate the pattern.
Brenton Strine
>
and
>
are effective, but then again this would be too:
...*
It just seems a shame that we have this neat attribute that indicates
required controls, but we can't actually use it to change the
presentation adding additional code.
Brenton
Maybe after having a few months to think about it some better ideas will pop up?
I'd like to see a dedicated way to do footnotes as well. I think it would be
worth having the discussion again.
Brenton
-Original Message-
From: whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.
er categories. I think a placeholder attribute would be great.
Brenton Strine
already up and
running? Can I use or ? In which browsers? What other tags can
I use? What other fancy HTML 5 stuff can I do today in 2008? Shouldn't the
whatwg wiki document that kind of stuff?
Brenton Strine
s of a specific browser version, be it IE7,
IE8, IE9, etc.
If we get this into the spec soon enough, Microsoft might
incorporate it in IE8 before it releases. What do you
think? Whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, I feel
that the whatwg needs to address this issue somehow.
Brenton Strine
> HTML is a language for markup meaningful by itself, not
just as a hook for CSS.
> doesn't mean anything.
That doesn't seem very practical to me. If all HTML tags
imply some meaning, then you are advocating the
elimination of presentation, not it's separation. If
there weren't any CSS hooks, wou
icker and wider acceptance.
I am okay with the unimaginative numbering of the extra
elements, as it would make it easy to have a lot of new
elements. However, there are countless possibilities:
, , , , ,
, , , etc...
Are there other people who have found themselves wishing
for another or -like
ize needed.
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:44 PM
To: Brenton Strine
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Suggestion for new
element/attribute
This sounds very much like something that should be done
in CSS, not
Hello,
I am new here, so please let me know if I am doing
anything out of order.
I would like to make a suggestion for soemthing I want to
see in HTML5.
I call it the inflate tag. .
The purpose of this tag is to expand that which contains
it as if it were full of text. I have seen many websites
So why not use the q element for irony as well, since a quote already
indicates both quotations and irony.
On 4/24/07, Elliotte Harold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> In Western typography, there is already a tradition to mark up irony
> with quotation marks:
>
> Yeah, Ge
15 matches
Mail list logo
