dolphinling's weblog » markup

Namespace syntax in HTML

dolphinling — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 07:50:10 +0000

We need namespaces in HTML.
We need a syntax for declaring those namespaces in HTML.
A very good, fitting syntax has already been invented for use in XML, and is understood by a significant number of authors.
That syntax has been corrupted through misuse by many pages. Is it worth trying to save, or do we need a new one (or is one of the premises wrong)?

Do NOT attach “target” through script!

dolphinling — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:24:31 +0000

Using target in (X)HTML Strict. If you need to use the target attribute, either stick with Transitional DOCTYPEs, or add the target attributes dynamically using semantic scripting, e.g. based on semantic class names.

(from http://tantek.com/log/2006/07.html#d27t1218)

NO NO NO NO NO! Your page is just as invalid if you add target in with script as if you put it in your markup.

If you absolutely must open a new window, make it a normal and use window.open() and cancel the default action for the link. But if you weren’t providing any size or chrome info (which are impossible with target anyway), then you don’t have any reason to be opening a window in the first place. Just don’t do it.

HTML is not an “Application Language”

dolphinling — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 01:52:52 +0000

Part of the reason is of course that HTML was originally a document language and is slowly evolving in being both that and an application language.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It shouldn’t be. HTML is fundamentally a language for displaying information. Accepting input should not be a part of HTML because a) It’s out of scope, and b) it’s useful in places that HTML isn’t. Manipulating information is also out of scope (and thankfully has never been mushed in). An application requires bits from all three: Accepting, manipulating, and displaying (it also benefits from a fourth: styling).

Content-Type/namespace mismatch

dolphinling — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:09:59 +0000

What happens if you serve an SVG document (SVG namespace, only SVG elements) as application/xhtml+xml? What should happen?

(“Happen” of course meaning semantically.)

I suggest calling it “WVG”

dolphinling — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:50:30 +0000

Maybe once I’ve finished HTML5, I can work on a new SVG to go with it.

Oh please please please yes

I need to stop lurking

dolphinling — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:31:41 +0000

I really must start posting on www-html more, instead of just reading. As far as I can tell, the HTML WG hasn’t released a good spec since HTML 4. (And that I only count “good” as it was an obvious improvement over HTML 3.2; everything since then has been stagnant or worse in terms of good design.

Also, I need to post to the WHATWG list more, too. While it’s making definite improvements with HTML 5, it still doesn’t separate documents from application UI. That makes it “relatively good” as HTML 4 was, and non-relatively probably the best spec of its type there ever has been, but still not good enough.

(This post prompted by something Anne said.)

Localized content vs. localized presentation of content

dolphinling — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:16:29 +0000

Which is better: localized content, or localized presentation of content?

For example, which is better:

Serving
```
February 2rd at 8:30 PM EST
```
to me, and equivelant things to other users, or

Serving


2006-02-03T01:30Z

to all users