Re: XHTML2?
- From: Gérard Talbot <newsblahgroup@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 13:06:21 -0400
Ben C wrote :
On 2007-05-18, G�rard Talbot <newsblahgroup@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the latest HTML 5working draft from the WHAT WG is proposing something quite bad in my opinion.
What's wrong with it?
HTML 5 proposes several tags which defeats the purpose of clear separation of content with presentation/style and goes against what lots of web standards advocacy groups have been relentlessly promoting during over a decade. Restoring <font> is really bad IMO. Same thing with <i>, and new tags like <m>; even <sup> and <sub>: all of this should be replaced with CSS. Also, <embed>, etc Some others are questionable to retain from HTML 4: e.g. <base>
Totally wrong, inadequate, incorrect, pure non-sense is the support for pseudo-protocol "javascript:".
Maybe (in fact, I wish!) we should/would start a new, distinct, separate thread on HTML 5.
Gérard
--
Using Web Standards in your Web Pages (Updated Apr. 2007)
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages
.
- References:
- XHTML2?
- From: UKuser
- Re: XHTML2?
- From: Jukka K. Korpela
- Re: XHTML2?
- From: Gérard Talbot
- Re: XHTML2?
- From: Ben C
- XHTML2?
- Prev by Date: Re: xhtml example of marked up image
- Next by Date: ►Adult Webmaster Empire – O Melhor Conteúdo para Webmaster Adulto!!
- Previous by thread: Re: XHTML2?
- Next by thread: Re: XHTML2?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|