Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTML6 Concept

html6spec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: HTML6 Concept

#71

Post by bastawhiz » 

    "HTML6 is conceptually HTML with XML like namespaces."
Well, there goes backwards compatibility. This sounds like a poor attempt to modularize markup. Web components + shadow DOM have already solved this problem. React solves this problem.
How is that better than
in any way shape or form? Hint: it isn't.

    "there is a void that HTML5 has yet to fill and that void is truly semantic markup."
The spec I see here doesn't even satisfy this requirement! It simply adds namespaces to existing elements and changes the syntax for some form elements. For instance:

    
    vs.
Which is more semantic? Neither. They're identical in every way. Why is it better for the browser to figure out the type rather than using or ? The author makes it seem like this is an advantage, but frankly I can't see it. With HTML5, I get all sorts of methods for controlling media types based on the DOM node. I don't need volume controls on an image. Is it really that hard to decide which tag to use? Your computer can do three things:

* Display something that might move and makes no sound (image)

* Display something that moves and makes sound (video)

* Play sound (audio)

If--as the developer--you have no idea which of these three things your asset is going to do, you've got bigger problems than being burdened by figuring out which tag to use.

IMO, this spec fails to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#72

Post by gagege »

swalsh wrote: post #11

There's only one thing I want in my future web client, and that's to not have to use javascript. Dart, or compilation in general is not quite the savior i'm hoping for... I want to be able to write C#, or Ruby, or python, and reference it on a page, and for it to run. Gosh that would be great. I wouldn't even mind if its a very limited version of the language. Edit: confused why i'm downvoted... hmmm

So, you want an operating system.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#73

Post by xienze »

mahdavi wrote: post #51

Seriously?

It's a namespace that contains HTML elements. Pretty obvious choice for the name. Presumably there would be "svg:" for SVG.

It seems the author's fatal mistake was not assigning the "html:" URI to the root namespace since everyone here is so caught up on "HUR DUR HTML:HTML THAT'S SO DUMB LOL XML SUCKS".

Re: HTML6 Concept

#74

Post by xienze »

jayrox wrote: post #29
ape4 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Err, no. XML allows you to set the root namespace for an element so it and child elements have an assumed namespace.

The point of using namespaces is to allow embedding different document/element types in the same document.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#75

Post by jpatte »

There's even a typo in the first example:

  Cats
  Dogs
  Rain
I guess forgetting the namespace in the closing tag will happen A LOT to everyone.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#76

Post by IgorPartola »

cletusw wrote: post #53
IgorPartola wrote: post #37

Some good ideas here but some terrible ones as well. First, is terrible. We don't need namespaces in HTML (or in XML for that matter, but that's a different story). would be sufficient. Even better, something like this: I do like the idea of not having generic 's everywhere. You can already do this with, for example, Angular. Basically, aside from the pre-defined elements (div, span, input, etc.) I want to just use w…

You just gave the exact definition of web components! https://www.polymer-project.org/platform/custom-elements.htm...

Sweet sweetness!

Re: HTML6 Concept

#77

Post by IgorPartola »

YoAdrian wrote: post #49
IgorPartola wrote: post #37

Some good ideas here but some terrible ones as well. First, is terrible. We don't need namespaces in HTML (or in XML for that matter, but that's a different story). would be sufficient. Even better, something like this: I do like the idea of not having generic 's everywhere. You can already do this with, for example, Angular. Basically, aside from the pre-defined elements (div, span, input, etc.) I want to just use w…

I think you want . http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/responsive/picture-el...

I am aware of , but it's a bit too narrow I think. The srcset functionality is really what I want, but there's also the other aspect of this: the ability to specify content-type.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#78

Post by jarrettc »

debacle wrote: post #5

HTML will never be semantic. The whole idea should be scrapped. HTML is inextricably bound to CSS in 2014, and has become more and more about presentation and less and less about data. Which is fine. We have JSON and XML for data. I would rather see some cohesive standards for JSON data formats, because that is the future. HTML is just the glue between CSS and Ajax requests.

I agree that HTML needn't be strictly semantic in the way that the OP suggests. But for the foreseeable future, it does need to encode basic structural data for CSS-less presentation. That includes links, headings, inter-page and intra-page navigation, and the like. Who needs that data? Screen readers, text-only browsers, and scrapers, to name a few.

Someday, it may be possible to do away with the concept of a web "page" or "document." Desktop and mobile apps aren't (generally) built in that paradigm. But if we move away from the document concept, we'll have a new set of problems. How do we represent things like blog posts, which really are more like documents than applications? How do we enable a variety of clients with varying capabilities to consume textual content? How do we maintain the useful concept of a URI, if at all? These may not be unsolvable problems, but they are challenging for sure.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#79

Post by nailer »

xienze wrote: post #63
IgorPartola wrote: post #37

Some good ideas here but some terrible ones as well. First, is terrible. We don't need namespaces in HTML (or in XML for that matter, but that's a different story). would be sufficient. Even better, something like this: I do like the idea of not having generic 's everywhere. You can already do this with, for example, Angular. Basically, aside from the pre-defined elements (div, span, input, etc.) I want to just use w…

> We don't need namespaces in HTML (or in XML for that matter, but that's a different story). Bzzt, wrong. How would you propose we allow other document types to be embedded in HTML (like SVG)? Just hope the tag names never collide?

I'm not the OP, but 'Bzzt, wrong' is rude, and not how people communicate on HN.

A default namespace of 'html', and explicit namespaces for is reasonable. But instead of is ridiculous and few people who currently create content for the web will ever use it.

Re: HTML6 Concept

#80

Post by nailer »

arcatek wrote: post #7

I think the title (and domain name) are a bit misleading: that's not HTML6, because it doesn't appear to be endorsed by anything related to the web standards (Mozilla, W3C, etc). That's MyHTML, sure, but not really HTML6. Funnily enough, at a first glance it looked like a real proposal, then I looked again and it appeared as a joke (I mean ... and are a bit satirical), and then I looked the repo and there's enough is…

The domain is even more misleading: this isn't the 'HTML6 spec', it's one person with little support or peer review (completely unlike whatwg). It's worth flagging the article.
Post reply on HN