Directory of RSS feeds
Statistics

RSS feeds in the directory: 374

Added today: 0

Added yesterday: 0

Hi-Tech / Internet

Why don't we add in a HTML element ?

Css-live - Severstal your world! 11.10.2018 at 12:56

Community that speaks the languages of HTML, CSS and JavaScript

Translation of the article Why don't we add a element to HTML? from the site www.brucelawson.co.uk published on css-live.ru with permission of the author Bruce Lawson

Yesterday was an interesting conversation started by Sarah Soueidan:

tweet Sarah Soueidan (@SaraSoueidan), 8 Oct 2018 16:36:

that's what I'd like to see in HTML:

Just. Extremely useful, ESP. for the design of systems today.

Here, while no one in a hurry not thinking, "but the color is not the content and design!", Sarah talked about pages with palettes of color swatches. In this case, color is the content. It seems that a good candidate for semantic elements, because it has value.

On the rights of the Ancient Veteran of the Web, I sat back and parastomal on it.

HTML: misspent youth

the First edition of HTML was a little set of tags contained in the letter of Sir Uncle Timbo (i.e. Tim Berners-Lee — approx. transl.) in October 1991, and adopted in November 1992, When there was HTML2, some tags have changed names, and added some more tags, which can be seen that HTML was conceived primarily as a language for mathematicians and computer geeks: , , , , , and are now dead , and .

At the time, we had two design element (and it is still a question as to whether the design specification says "If you want a certain image — for example, when referring to a specific text attribute as in the phrase "the italicized text is required" — with the element of the typography to ensure that the required typography was used wherever possible").

future versions of HTML would reflect changes in the use of the web: it was no longer just a document to read, as imagined Sir Uncle Timbo, so we needed a way to send information back to the sites — hence the diversity of markup for forms that subsequently could not be better served e-Commerce. Added tables to display data, expanding the original niche of the web to display mathematical articles and sharing. A side effect of this was that a creative person could (AB)use tables to create beautiful looking sites, which meant that sites have become even more attractive commercially (as well as a whole zoo of presentational markup is now cancelled as there is CSS).

When there is HTML5, we have added a number of features to distinguish targets in a typical design the web pages , , , and the like, added conveniences for users of assistive technologies.

According to my calculations, we now have 124 HTML element, many of whom are web developers do not know or regularly confused with each other — for example, what is the difference between and . This tells me that the cognitive load of learning all these different elements becomes excessive.

HTML: calm maturity

There are plenty of just what we have no elements in HTML. For years I dreamed about the item for geographical information and cell ( etc)

here are some of the main reasons why we are unlikely to see them (or sarin ):

the 80/20 Rule (Pareto's law — approx. transl.)

the meaning of the existence of the web is to share all conceivable human knowledge. Therefore, the list of possible things for which it would be possible to have a semantics that is endless. To teach and keep in mind our current list of elements, their semantics and attributes already becomes too much. So we (hopefully) is just a set of elements that expresses the most common semantics (if you don't pay attention to the historical artifacts that browsers have to continue to support it, because we can't break the web).

Fourteen years ago (!) Matthew Thomas wrote:

the more complex a markup language, the less people understand it and the less the average page will comply with the standard, so the less useful the web semantics.

Test

Browsers are complex beasts. I bet that this is the most complex program of all that now work on your device. As a person who once worked in the browser, I know what resistance I meet attempts to add a new item to the language — it increases the list of what we have to test, and increases the risk of regressions. As written by Matt Marquis in recent history, responsive images,

But most importantly, it meant that we didn't need to recreate a brand new item all the features of the img, because a picture is nothing and not displayed.

Where and how to use it?

the Most important question: if the elements , or was that the browser was doing with them?

Matthew Thomas believed that new elements need some form of user interface that web developers make it easier to choose one for you:

One way to improve this situation would be to reduce the number of new items to forget , for example.

Another solution would be to recommend more explicit the default formatting for each of these elements — for example, to default the first letter stood out like a cap, pressed to the right edge, and the background was a little darker than their parent, and ... and ... the default was a string representation. Then authors are more likely to choose any element.

How to write Robin Berjon,

Almost everyone in the web community agree that "semantics is delicious and will bring you cookies", and that's probably true. But we should start to delve a little bit deeper, as it becomes clear that very few can really explain why.

So, before starting all over again, I have to ask: what are you going to do with this damned semantics?

the Typical answer — "to rethink the content." At first glance, remarkable, but very soon there comes a time when you have to ask "and to rethink what for?". For example, if you want to display pages on a small screen (also a kind of reinterpretation), or will tell you that this is not the content, and can be hidden from the eye; but if you parse the legal nuances, from digging with some heuristics inside nothing very much.

I think HTML should add only those elements, whose functionality differently inconceivable (eg. ), or those whose semantics helps rethink *for tasks browsing the web*.

So what are we to do?

fortunately, HTML is already a little known item that you can wrap the data to make them machine-readable element :

This element can be used for different purposes.

In combination with microformats or microdata, this element helps to provide both a machine-readable value for the analyzers of the data and chelovekochasov value to display in the browser. In this case, the format to be used in the value attribute, defined dictionary used by the microformat or microdata.

Manuel Strehl sketched a quick example of the color palette of Sarah using the item . You can add more to this semantics, microdata, and using the color property of schema.org.

Some dictionaries schema.org stand the "test of a browser-based interface" Robin and Matthew (in so far as). We know that rich snippets in Google search results using some of the microdata, as well as the watch OS from Apple, that's why I mark the date of the publication in your blog, with their help it is:

reading List

Friday, June 29, 2018

A delightful, reliable content

updated: Saturday, June 30, 2018 Updated content

Google says:

you Can add additional page elements for structured data schema.org to help Google understand the purpose and content of the page. Structured data can help Google properly categorize your page in the search results, and will also make your page suitable for future opportunities of search results.

This is not quite accurate (the secret algorithms of Google and all that), but I don't think it could hurt. What are you babbling about? This adds to the markup of your page a dozen or two bytes? First, count your kilobytes for jQuery and React and from the pictures in full screen, and before it, there is nothing to worry about the excess downloading semantic calories.

What about custom elements?

Custom dumplings will be here soon™ Edge, with the flag in Gecko and is already in Blink. They allow you to start your own new tags, which should be a hyphen — e.g. . Nevertheless, they are primarily a way to collect separate pieces of functionality ("Components") and share them, and no semantics are added.

Conclusion

So, that's why we didn't include the new semantics in HTML (but feel free to offer if it has a real application). However, a lot can be done with the existing semantics, generic type containers and built-in expandability. Happy marking!