Archive for the ‘WHATWG’ Category
Thursday, March 8th, 2007
this post refers to the "Write" interface from WordPress utilized to post comments to WHATWG blogs.
there is well-intentioned, but mis-implemented markup in the edit form; namely, improper implemetation of the FIELDSET.
for a proper FIELDSET, one needs to do 4 things:
- open the
FIELDSET (which this form does)
- define a
LEGEND for the FIELDSET (which this form does NOT); the natural candidates for LEGEND are the level 3 headers (H3) classed dbx-handle so instead of repeatedly hearing "click to open this box", i would also get the pseudo-box (which i would call sub-forms) LEGEND as an indicator of what i am about to open or close. i would also make the alt text device independent - instead of "click here to open this box", i would propose "show sub-form" and "hide sub-form"
- bind individual
FORM controls to their textual labels by use of the LABEL element and the for/id mechanism that ties the form control (which takes the "id") to a LABEL (which takes the "for") or multiple labels; the LABEL should contain the actual, textual label, and NOT the FORM control, as in this form; this form has the attribute set set correctly to bind the LABEL to the FORM control, but since the LABEL element is opened PRIOR to the INPUT element, no labeling is available to the user - in my case (i use a screen-reader) the sub-forms that appear when one opens a FIELDSET to reveal a FORM appear unlabeled to my screenreader, because of invalid markup.
- close the
FIELDSET (which this form does)
Posted in Forms, WHATWG | 10 Comments »
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007
The W3C today publicly announced that they are restarting an HTML specification effort. This is great news and a clear validation of the WHATWG effort, which has been leading the maintenance and development of HTML since 2004.
Surprisingly, the W3C never actually contacted the WHATWG during the chartering process. However, the WHATWG model has clearly had some influence on the creation of this group, and the charter says that the W3C will try to "actively pursue convergence with WHATWG". Hopefully they will get in contact soon.
In the meantime, apparently anyone can actually join the W3C effort. The instructions to join the group are as follows:
- Fill in the Public Access Request Form; in the "Reason" field, put: "To apply for participation in the HTML Working Group as an Invited Expert."
- Within about five minutes you'll receive a confirmation code by e-mail. Follow the instructions in that e-mail.
- You should get a reply back from that within two days, giving you a username and password. Fill in the W3C Invited Expert Application form. Under "Financial Support", if you're not going to attend any meetings or if you're going to attend meetings on your own dime, just put "Self-supported". Under "Possible W3C Membership", if you're employed but your employer doesn't know you're doing this, or doesn't care, just pick "My employer does not intend to join".
- E-mail Dan Connolly and
Karl DubostMike Smith ([email protected], [email protected][email protected]) asking for approval. (Just say "Hi, I'd like to join the HTML working group. Thanks.") - You should get a reply back within about ten days, at which point you can fill in the Joining the HTML Working Group form.
I would encourage everyone interested in working with the HTML working group to go through these steps as soon as possible, so that you will be a member of the group before the work starts.
Joining the group doesn't commit you to anything (e.g. you won't have to attend meetings or anything if you don't want to). The group's charter clearly says that all decisions will be made in ways that don't require attending meetings.
This post has been updated a few times to take into account new information about how to join the group.
Posted in WHATWG | 21 Comments »
Monday, February 26th, 2007
Last month, I did a
presentation on the future of HTML at the WSG meeting in Sydney. For those of you who couldn't make it, or those who wish to hear it again, I have finally got around to
publishing the slides, audio recording and transcript.
Posted in WHATWG | Comments Off on The Future of HTML Presentation Slides
Thursday, February 22nd, 2007
HTML requires that authors declare the character encoding of the file either
using HTTP headers (when served over HTTP) or metadata in the file. In previous
versions of HTML, authors could specify the character encoding using a relatively
complex meta element like this:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">
The idea of the http-equiv attribute was that it would act as
a substitute for real HTTP headers. However, in practice, that is not entirely
true. Only a few headers actually have any effect in browsers. In fact,
HTML4 even suggested that servers use this attribute to gather information
for HTTP response message headers; but in reality, no known server ever did
this.
Although the MIME type is included in the value for the Content-Type header
above, it has no effect in browsers. The only useful and practical piece of
information in that element is: charset=UTF-8.
In order to simplify the meta element and remove unnecessary markup, HTML5
has changed it slightly. The new way to declare the character encoding in the
file will be to use the following:
<meta charset="UTF-8">
Obviously, that is much shorter and easier to remember. Luckily, due to the
way encoding detection has been implemented by browsers, it is backwards compatible
and believed to be supported by all known browsers.
Along with this, the spec has recently defined how encoding detection must
be implemented by browsers and imposed a few additional restrictions for documents
to be considered conforming.
- When serialised,
the charset attribute
and its value must be contained completely in the first 512 bytes of the file.
- The attribute value must be serialised without the use of character entity
references of any kind. e.g. You cannot use
<meta charset=" UTF-8"> to
declare UTF-8. This is because the encoding detection algorithm does not decode
character references, because it occurs before the actual parsing begins.
- The character encoding used must be a rough superset of US-ASCII e.g. you
can’t use this for EBCDIC encoded files.
- User agents must not support the CESU-8, UTF-7, BOCU-1 and SCSU encodings.
If the encoding is either UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32, then authors can use a
BOM at the start of the file to indicate the character encoding.
Posted in WHATWG | 12 Comments »
Saturday, February 17th, 2007
All markup languages have three aspects: theory, application and philosophy.
Most web developers do not concern themselves with the theory of markup languages, e.g., HTML, XHTML and XML. That is for those who write the specifications and UAs, or User Agents. UAs make things work. Most web developers are not interested in how things works as long as it works.
Most web developers, however, are concerned with the practical application of markup languages in websites they construct. Specification requirements are easier to understand.
HTML 5 isn't any different. It has its theory but that is not what this article is about. (The theory of HTML 5 can be saved for a later day.) The following addresses the application of HTML 5 by web developers while an attempt is made to understand those reasons which make HTML 5 different.
Three fundamental considerations are made by web developers. They are:
1. Document Type Declaration
The W3C DTD, or Document Type Definition, specifies either “Standards Mode” or “Quirks Mode” for UAs parsing Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). (“Standards Mode” is the default for XHTML [except when an XML declaration has been included above the DTD which will then trigger “Quirks Mode”].) Web developers who have chosen HTML 4.01 use DTDs which trigger “Standards Mode”. HTML5 specifies a Document Type Declaration, i.e., <!DOCTYPE html>. which triggers “Standards Mode”. (This DocType was not invented by The WHAT WG; it existed previously.) Further, DTDs are unnecessary for elements and attributes. All elements and attributes are recognized by UAs, e.g., browsers, with this DocType.
2. MIME Type
HTML 4.01 is primarily sent as “text/html”. XHTML 1.0 is primarily sent as “text/html”. Web Applications 1.0, 1.4.1 - HTML vs XHTML states that all documents sent as “text/html” are HTML5.
3. Well-Formedness
XHTML introduced the concept of “well-formedness”. (See XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition), Appendix C.) “Well-formedness” was simple. However, these days, “well-formedness” has come to include all of the requirements set forth in Appendix C and Section 4. Differences with HTML 4, too. It is one of the cardinal principles of web standards. “Well-formed” sites define web standards.
Conclusion
Most web developers want their CSS displayed in a “standards-compliant mode”; most web developers will continue sending documents as “text/html”; and, most will not veer from writing “well-formed” code.
It – Then - seems that all one needs to do for using HTML 5 is:
- Replace the W3C Document Type Definition with
<!DOCTYPE html>.
- Continue sending documents as “
text/html”.
- Do not alter “well-formed” source code.
Nevertheless, all website pages remain (X)HTML but with a different DocType.
So, theory aside, the application of HTML 5 isn’t any different from common, existing practices practiced by authors who use web standards.
It’s philosophically different. That's all.
Posted in WHATWG | 16 Comments »