The specification of HTML5 that has been published currently is not yet final. The proposed recommendation does mean however that there will be two interoperable implementations. As of , browser vendors are actively adding support for new features of HTML5. By: Justin Stoltzfus Contributor, Reviewer. By: Satish Balakrishnan. Dictionary Dictionary Term of the Day. Natural Language Processing.
Techopedia Terms. Connect with us. The language uses tags to define what manipulation has to be done on the text. It is used for structuring and presenting the content on the web pages. Many elements are removed or modified from HTML5. Recommended Articles. Article Contributed By :. Easy Normal Medium Hard Expert. Writing code in comment? Please use ide. Load Comments. What's New. However, for the hobbyist and for businesses, such as BMW which was referenced by Dubost, it is the responsibility and function, I believe, of the CMS and development applications to serve the function of notifying the developer of invalid code.
The primary function of the HTML 5 spec is to adapt to the ways that the vast majority of content is being coded and allow it to comply to a standard. In theory, and hopefully practicality, this will ease the way for browsers to render, for example, tag soup, consistently.
You make a very valid point, along with Molly Holzschlag, that full implementation of all existing standards should and needs to happen, quickly. Lot of wrangling over details in these comments, with the bulk of opinion seeming to go to something that I believe would be actively harmful to individuals trying to earn a living.
Granted, sloppy work is no good thing, but everyone makes mistakes, and in correcting those mistakes one reaches a point of diminishing returns:. It would be a handy browser feature but it would be a browser feature, not something that belongs in the standard.
Of course, if one wishes to see the validity of every page, one could simply leave that feature enabled. I read the original post as something with a much, much nobler goal than pointing fingers. HTML 5 will require that all browsers respond to any given error in the same way. This, if implemented properly, removes an artificial and meaningless source of differences between IE, Gecko, Opera, khtml, and all other html renderers out there. Even though most of us want a more well-formed web, it appears we are divided on how to get there.
One extreme is to let browsers silently fix all markup errors, like today. The second is not realistic, because it breaks the web. Anything that breaks the web i. The first priority of HTML 5 must be to accomodate the masses, and that means making old tagsoup show up pretty in next-gen browsers.
However, browsers could still promote well-formedness in discrete ways. The icon on the status bar I suggested earlier would have this effect. I find myself leaning towards the comments that allow rendering of bad markup. Users want to see content that companies are offering. Creating tools that hinder this relation is not good.
Besides, if you have worked long enough in private companies, you can envisage the examples given above turning into situations where an expert author is coming back to the office on a long week end to fix something broken by a novice author. Please, display the page. I also want to see a valid web. The discussion so far is focused on letting the user know that a page is broken. How about letting the originating site know that the page is broken?
Could there be any mechanism put in place to help with that? As we all know, the reason that this situation ever came about is that early web browsers were unreasonably forgiving and these browsers were the only testing tools that non-professional web authors were exposed to.
These browsers failed in their duty to web authors. We should not keep becoming distracted by the issue of what happens when end users view invalid pages in their browsers. What is important to focus on when considering how things must change is sorting out the experience that web authors at home say have when they are writing HTML and using their browsers as test tools.
It is time to draw a line and bring the era of pervasive broken markup to an end and this is to be achieved by a combination of measures. One strategy towards this is to pressure browser manufacturers and vendors of other tools to include accurate and updatable validation tools in their products. This is an idea worth pursuing, but this strategy on its own will not succeed because only the more knowledgeable web authors will know to obtain such validators or know to turn them on. Rather, I believe that it is vital to proceed as follows i W3C to version-mark HTML5 now, so that forthcoming browsers can recognise it as such ii W3C to require browser manufacturers to fail with an error just like XML if they see an invaliud pages bearing that version marker.
Aim to get it into Firefox 3 and IE8 without fail. No, browser vendors will never stick to that rule. Why should they? The people who write the spec do not write the browser code, the spec is not law and the browser market is too competitive to give purity, purism or beauty a chance. So what, now invalid markup will have to be rendered in given way?
If specification says how to render it why should anyone care to produce valid markup? This only impose new restrictions on the user agents which may only do harm, ie. I recently joined a company, working with all MS.
NET developers. Passive error checking is a great idea, in my opinion. I find it more sensible to humbly request this feature to be added in specific browsers. I wish browsers would use a true SGML parser. Such parsers do exist. Only big company could produce parsers able to parse one of the most complex computer language ever. Well, I fail to see what are you people arguing about. The main ideas were mostly said by other, :.
Yes, they are coders and with all browser displaying i. CSS the same way, it would be easier for them to obey the specifications. I have fixed it. The value of a cite attribute must be a URI. What a modern browser should have done with a non conformant markup like this? Should it carry a message saying the whole page was non conformant? The issue is not on the browser level, but authoring level.
The issue is that authoring tools and authors should be strict in what they produce, that was part of the sense of my article in the craft of HTML. It means they have to find techniques to recover the content. What HTML 5 offer for the first time is a precise description on how to recover.
All people implementing the production of HTML code. The sanitization of the HTML code is in the production tools. Luckily enough is something which is almost impossible to check by machine. So if we push a bit further, this article should not have been displayed because of your comment. You sold me on the need for the HTML 5 spec based solely on error and recovering handling. A key component on this are the CMS and authoring tool developers. What are the reasons for their non-participation within the HTML 5 working groups and how can this critical element be resolved?
Is it possible that van Kesteren will keep this article current on a monthly basis or as needed? The W3C projects a final recommendation date of the 4th quarter of Consistent recovery from invalid markup is indeed a useful and important thing to specify.
But it should not be part of the HTML 5 specification. This spec could act as a helpful guide to browser implementors, who currently all use their own algorithms for rendering invalid markup. It would apply to both HTML 4. There are ways to detect that the posted code is invalid before putting it on the page.
And when the recovery algorithm will be available, the receiving script should be able to apply it easily and make the posted code valid. What about creating strict with active error feedback and transitional or such with passive error feedback standards?
Just a quick note, that I see sometimes some comments made anonymously. These comments will not be moderated positively. I strongly believe, however, that this mechanism has no place in the main HTML specification which should be clean, clear and above all require correct implementation. Poor quality code should be optionally recoverable but never explicitly accommodated.
Like e.
0コメント