Live data from Hacker News

HTML6 Concept

html6spec.com

21–30 of 89 posts

Re: HTML6 Concept

#24
The one good idea here is merely the media tag, which could be useful for CMS for instance. But that's it. Namespaces are already too much in XML, don't bring them into HTML, please.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#25
It's an interesting proposal.

But it breaks compatibility with what has been HTML since first version, by forcing to prefix existing HTML tags.

Rather, it should propose to enhance the new semantic tags by adding a prefix, for instance ... (or for readability) while preserving existing tags.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#26
I've heard a bit about 'semantic markup' for the web but I don't really understand it.

I'd love it if someone could tell me, as an example, how semantic markup would support displaying a syntax-highlighted a block of code in a web page?

Re: HTML6 Concept

#27
post #8

I'm almost disappointed to see a post like this with no comments - because while it's often quite negative - HN comments often provide me with context and a counterpoint that's really quite useful. My first reaction is that I quite like it. It's more semantic than dozens of nested divs and spans, and perhaps that's not as useful for machine generated code - for those of us coding html by hand.

Is it really more semantic? Consider the first example, starting "1...".

It looks reasonable from the start, but then you get into real-world issues: why do you need to specify the days? What do you do if you want a 10 year calender? How do you treat February? What are the odds of everyone getting the calender correct, especially when doing it by hand? How do you specify the first day of the week? Some countries start the week on a Sunday and others on a Monday. Can the month name be localized, so that French readers see it as Janvier while the back-end still knows it's January?

People tried really hard to get semantic namespaces working with XML/XHTML, but it didn't really seem to pan out.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#29
post #20
post #12

just feels backwards to me. the stuff seems like it should all be under the default html namespace and assumed. where as the other stuff may be better suited to be namespaced. just seems like a waste adding "html:" to all of the root/core elements.

If that happened browsers would have to make "html:" optional. So authors could get away without using it.

and at that point a complete waste of being in the spec to start with.
Post reply on HN