
HTML5's time is back - d0vs
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Nov/0011.html
======
ryan-allen
All these specialised tags seem so completely redundant. Why do we need a
sanctioned header and footer and time tag? Why wouldn't you just make tag
names open ended and control the presentation with CSS? Why on earth can't we
use arbitrary attribute names, instead we have to use this clunky data
attribute. It's truly ridiculous.

This is how I hear W3C announcements on such things:

"A specialist committee of 500 have reviewed a sample of so-called 'internet
sites' as found on the so-called 'internet'. We have noticed that often times
people like to have so-called 'headers' and 'footers' in their website. We
have decided then that in your best interests that we have officially
sanctioned a <header> and <footer> tag. Thank you, thank you. We also have
noticed that occasionally people put times and dates in their web pages.
Therefore we have sanctioned a <date> tag for your convenience. We are glad to
contribute to the evolution of the web."

It is so arbitrary and detached from real world web development. This isn't
'bringing the web forward' in any sense. I don't know what the answer is but
it certainly isn't this.

~~~
dfischer
If everything were arbitrary then there would be no agreed upon standards and
semantics.

By having an agreed upon structure you allow the internet to get smarter. Data
mining, search engines, usability, etc...

E.g <phone> tag that is always expected to have a phone number. That way when
it's rendered on certain devices it will always have a phone number that can
be interacted with.

Sure you can achieve that now with text parsing but there's better ways to
evolve the web and that's what standards are for and the introduction to new
elements that are semantically accurate.

~~~
grandalf
Pardon the devil's advocate question, but to what extent is semantic markup
(other than with microformats) relevant to today's web? I mean, how is it used
by anyone? I've tried to use semantic markup and it's not really a very
effective abstraction for many kinds of data and UX.

~~~
robin_reala
Ask anyone who accesses the web through a screen reader and they’ll tell you
it’s extremely useful. Not to be flippant, but well structured markup allows a
screen reader to:

* Emphasise headings

* Allow users to skip past header sections automatically

* Ignore information unrelated to the content (aside sections)

* Allow users to navigate by heading structure

* Voice certain parts differently - links are an obvious candidate, but screen readers could put on different voices for quotes

* Etc etc etc.

~~~
mattmanser
Hang on a sec, that's what CSS does for the sighted, we don't expect the HTML
to tell the browser how to layout the page, so why are you expecting the HTML
to be able to tell a screen reader how to present it.

Semantic web is suppose to elicit meaning from content, not presentation.

The whole concept of semantic markup is extremely fishy to me. On the one hand
you're supposed to remove presentation directions but on the other it's
supposed to give presentation clues to screen readers?

~~~
robin_reala
When you build a site with CSS you’re over-riding the browser’s built in
stylesheet. If you don’t provide your own CSS then the site is readable
without, because the browser lends basic visual meaning to semantic markup.

Think of screen readers as having internal styling. Links are read in a
different voice because the screen reader is applying a default audio style to
the page.

Audio styling is part of CSS2.1 [1] but isn’t widely supported or widely
written (classic chicken/egg problem). If you want to you can (at least
theoretically) over-ride a screen reader’s default presentation of your
markup.

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/aural.html>

~~~
mattmanser
I know, although I disagree that almost any site without its css stylesheet is
really readable, but the original question was how is semantic HTML useful.

If usability is the only answer and it's doing precisely the opposite of what
semantic HTML is _supposed_ to achieve, namely separation of content and
presentation, it appears to me that we've not really decided what semantic
HTML is, it just sounds kinda cool and has a happy side effect of making it
easier for screen readers to parse.

So many of these new tags seem too narrow, a victim of the old fashioned
thinking of the w3c where everything, to them, is still a document.

Why use article instead of div? Will it really make mining easier or will you
get loads of false positives? If my site creates hourly weather reports, are
they articles? Why can't I define my own tag of weatherreport? Is there any
point?

To quote ryan's original comment:

 _This isn't 'bringing the web forward' in any sense. I don't know what the
answer is but it certainly isn't this._

~~~
strickjb9
HTML shouldn't need CSS + JavaScript to incorporate basic functions. The point
of these new elements is to DEFINE semantics that we can take advantage of
TOMORROW. This goes far beyond screen readers.

------
lifthrasiir
I'm so glad about this response from W3C (I do criticize the general
bureaucracy of W3C though). In many aspects, I felt that the recent moves of
the HTML living standard were much like that of XHTML2:

\- Why do keep the redundant <a> element while we can add the href attribute
to all elements?

\- Why do keep <br> while we can generalize the line structure via <nl>? (NB:
I'm not sure about the exact element name)

Is removing <time> in favor of <data> really different from these statements?

~~~
dhx
The problem with HTML is that it tries to simultaneously solve two completely
different problems:

1) How do I provide data in a meaningful, semantic, machine-readable format?

2) How do I display data in a web browser, on a phone or in print? Do I use
columns? What type of navigation options should I provide to the user in this
instance?

XML solves (1). XSLT/HTML (as a UI layout description format only) can solve
(2).

Attempts to merge the two concepts together will end in certain failure.

~~~
petervandijck
Yes, certain failure. That internet thing will never amount to anything :)

There's a saying about the perfect being the enemy of something, can't
remember it though.

------
j_baker
Can someone translate this from bureaucrat-ese to English for me? I really
don't understand what this is saying and what its importance is.

~~~
tagawa
Dear Mr. Editor,

You have until next Tuesday to put the <time> element back in the spec. If you
don't, we'll do it for you.

Lots of love,

HTML WG Chairs

~~~
j_baker
Ah, ok. I parsed the title as meaning "HTML 5's time has come again".

~~~
samstave
I did same, and was left here thinking "Where the frak have I been - when was
HTML5 on hiatus from being current?"

------
nl
I like the followup message:

 _I respectfully request that the <time> rollback happen at 2am on Sunday._

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
html/2011Nov/0012...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
html/2011Nov/0012.html)

(Probably only funny if you have had to do timezone handling in your code
before)

