On Monday, August 16, 2010 01:59:44 am Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Larry Garfield wrote:
> >> These elements are not supported in IE6/7 and they can't be CSS styled
> >> there without using supplement Javascript library.
> >
> > So? That doesn't mean they are valueless. There's nothing wrong with
> > using those supplemental libraries if appropriate.
>
> From all perspectives (performance, bandwidth, security, ...) it is
> better to use
>
> <div class="nav">
>
> then
>
> <nav> + some funky Javascript
But <nav> without needing JS is better still. So for those producers that
choose to use it, their HTML5-supporting users will get a superior experience
while non-HTML5-using users will get an inferior but still functional
experience. I guess I'm still missing how this is a problem.
> > So what's the downside of an HTML5-based output option (not required for
> > all output, but an option alongside the various other targets) that
> > people can use when their particular user base is HTML5-capable enough?
> > Wouldn't the easy availability of such a target help push HTML5 forward
> > by providing more HTML5- dependent content, creating a demand among
> > users for better HTML5-supporting browsers? That would mean people
> > viewing DocBook output would, when they upgrade their browser, poof, get
> > the new hotness because it's already there waiting for them?
>
> Hmm, I still don't know what HTML5 functionality you would like to see
> in DocBook generated content. If there will be no additional
> functionality there is no reason for switching to HTML5.
Better SEO through more semantic markup seems like a perfectly good bit of
functionality to me.
--Larry Garfield
