Comment: After understanding the progress of XHTML 2, let’s take a look at the progress of X/HTML 5. X/HTML 5 Cool Where is the idea of chapter elements X/HTML 5 introduces new elements to divide web pages into several chapters. These components help search engines and assistive tools to better understand page content. Using these new elements can make the tag more readable. Chapter 1
After understanding the progress of XHTML 2, let’s take a look at the progress of X/HTML 5.
X/HTML 5 Where is cool
Concept of chapter elements
X/HTML 5 introduces new elements to divide web pages into chapters. These components help search engines and assistive tools to better understand page content. Using these new elements can make the tag more readable.
The idea of chapter-based content is cool! But please see why the technique of using chapters is not cool enough.
Dialogue elements
A dialogue element is used to represent a conversation. It includes a dt element for defining the session's DT element and a dd element for representing the session's speech. For example:
<dialog>
<dt>Costello</dt>
<dd>Look, you gotta first baseman?</dd>
<dt>Abbott</dt>
<dd>Certainly.</dd>
<dt>Costello</dt>
<dd>Who's playing first?</dd>
<dt>Abbott</dt>
<dd>That's right.</dd>
<dt>Costello</dt>
<dd>When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?</dd>
<dt>Abbott</dt>
<dd>Every dollar of it.</dd>
</dialog>
figrae element
Headers are often used in media objects (photos, illustrations, charts, etc.) in print distribution (textbooks, newspapers, magazines, etc.). So far, web markup languages have no structure that can produce such effects. The figrue element has a legend child element that can be used to specify the header of the image. For example:
XML/HTML Code
<figure>
<legend>Credit: Media Inc., 2007</legend>
<img src=smith.jpg alt=Photo: J. Smith />
</figure>
m element
The m element represents a piece of text being marked or highlighted. This is very useful when displaying search keywords in dynamic web pages. At this time, the keywords in the page can be marked with the m element. For example, in response to the user's search for keyword snow, the web page can generate the following paragraph:
XML/HTML Code
<p>A <m>snow</m>man is a man-like sculpture constructed out of <m>snow</m>.</p>
Input element is strengthened
After the input element function is enhanced, it can support data types such as email, url, data correlation, time correlation, and numbers. This means that more verification functions can be completed on the client side.
The open process
The development process of X/HTML is much more open than XHTML 2. Everyone can participate in the X/HTML 5 creative details.
The only shortcomings of X/HTML 5
Use of chapter elements
The idea of using chapter elements is good, but it seems a bit cumbersome in the application of X/HTML 5. There are even some explanations that will make you even more confused. For example:
The aside element represents a part of the content that makes up the page, which is associated with the content before and after the aside element, and can be regarded as an independent part of the content. These components are often used in sidebars in printing techniques.
Is it easier to understand the div elements with role attributes that are not added to be extensible and unintelligible?
Another mentioned chapter element is nav, which represents links to other pages in the page. Do we really need the nav element? The nl element in XHTML 2 can do this task better.
The shortcomings in HTML 4 and XHTML 1 will still exist in future specifications
Because X/HTML attempts to provide backward support, deficiencies in HTML 4 and XHTML 1 will also exist in X/HTML 5. The specification does not have to be backwards, but the client software provides backwards compatibility by supporting a variety of specifications.
X/HTML 5 does not follow the X/HTML 5 manual
X/HTML 5 is designed to be backward compatible with HTML 4 and XHTML 1. Now big, acronym, u and tt are not the contents of this specification, and other elements such as i and samll have a redefined semantic meaning. For example, in the HTML 4.01 specification, i and small are defined like this:
i: Make the text italic
Small: render text in small font
In X/HTML 5, i and small have new meanings:
The i element uses different ways to express a paragraph of text or paragraphs that are different from the text, such as classification design, technical terms, idioms in foreign languages, ideas, opinions, ship names or other texts that need to be presented in italics in printing technology. .
The small element presents small fonts (parts in the document that indicate legal constraints, such as copyright or existing disadvantages) and comments.
This breaks backward compatibility for HTML 4 and XHTML 1 by redefining the meaning of i and small. This is because backward compatibility should mean that the HTML 5 user agent (user agent, browser) should be consistent with the HTML 4 user agent when rendering HTML 4 documents. Therefore, if HTML 5 emphasizes backward compatibility, the structures that are not very meaningful in HTML 4 are also meaningless in HTML 5.
No, right? Still support font elements?
Yes, if developers use the WYSIWYG editor, X/HTML 5 still supports font elements. Is there any rationality for doing this? Can the WYSIWYG editor avoid using font?
WYSIWYG signature
Documents generated using the WYSIWYG editor must contain the following WYSIWYG signature in the head element:
XML/HTML Code
<meta name=generator content=(WYSIWYG editor) />
or:
XML/HTML Code
<meta name=generator content=Sample Editor 1.0 (WYSIWYG editor) />
What is the reason for doing this? Some kind of shame mark? Is it necessary to tell the browser to prepare for the worst, because this document was generated using the WYSIWYG editor? So, what should I do if only a part of the document is done using the WYSIWYG tool?
Supports predefined class names
The predefined class name is a semantic CSS class name retained in the X/HTML 5 user agent. In the following example, copyright is a predefined class name:
XML/HTML Code
<p class=copyright>...</p>
Other predefined class names include error, example, issue, note, search and warning. What's more troublesome is that some predefined class names are only used in certain elements and cannot be used in other elements. For example, the class name copyright is only used in p and span elements. The class name error is only used in p, section, span and strong.
One problem with predefined class names is that the following writing method is meaningless:
XML/HTML Code
<p class=important>
And this way of writing will make sense:
XML/HTML Code
<p class=copyright>
Rewriting the class attributes becomes difficult to explain the specific meaning of the structure. For example, what does the following code mean:
XML/HTML Code
<p class=important copyright issue>
Predefined class names also limit developers' freedom of use of class names. Similarly, if the developer now uses a non-predefined class name, but one day the class name becomes a predefined class, what will happen first? Does this change the semantics of the developer's previous content?
HTML 5 vs XHTML 5
In an attempt to finally resolve the debate between HTML and XHTML, the X/HTML 5 specification makes things harder to understand. Indeed, the X/HTML 5 specification does say that generally speaking, developers can use XML directly in the web, even though W3C has been working hard for the future application of XML in the web.
The development process is too rushed
X/HTML 5 is to deal with W3C's delay in HTML 4 and XHTML 1 updates. Therefore, this leads to the development process of X/HTML 5 a bit rush, and it feels like this specification suddenly pops up from where it suddenly and then follows up quickly. Even developers who are directly involved feel that the standardized development process is a bit impractical.
Competition for the next generation of markup languages
Both X/HTML 5 and XHTML 2 are competing for alternatives to HTML 4 and XHTML 1. Instantly in the early stages of development, some browser vendors have already claimed their preference for both specifications. Due to the urgency and closure of the review, this has polarized the Web standards organization. As the two norms progress, more development resources and market capital will be invested in one of them, all of which will cause a standard war.
Each of us is the setter of this standard, because the Web belongs to everyone, and only an honest and open debate can ensure that the best standard becomes the winner.
Note: For the sake of reading, HTML 4.x/XHTML 1.x is abbreviated as HTML 4 and XHTML 1 in the article
Original connection:?id=249