| 00:00 | <gsnedders> | I'd have an explicit p there, as otherwise it is implied and doesn't make rendering quite so obvious |
| 00:02 | <othermaciej> | down to 216 unread in my public-html folder.... |
| 00:21 | <Hixie> | boblet: it technically makes no difference -- in both cases the "phrasing content" text is a paragraph, it's just that the <p> element makes it more obvious |
| 00:22 | <boblet> | Hixie: thanks for the clarification |
| 00:22 | <Hixie> | boblet: there's a section in the spec that talks about implied paragraphs (note that this is not implied <p>s, just implied "semantic" paragraphs, like the implied sections cause by <h2> etc) |
| 00:22 | <boblet> | aah yeah, I think that’s what I’m half-remembering |
| 00:22 | <boblet> | will re-read that now |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | it's not an uber-clear section |
| 00:23 | <Hixie> | it's hard to really explain it because of the way HTML has implied elements |
| 00:24 | <boblet> | Hixie: oh speaking of half-remembering, I think you originally did some research looking at class/id names to inform new sectioning element naming. was that http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html ? |
| 00:24 | <Hixie> | yeah |
| 00:24 | <boblet> | (I’m writing a little aside on the history of the new elements) |
| 00:25 | <boblet> | Hixie: if you have editing powers on that page it refers to <date> btw ;-) |
| 00:25 | <Hixie> | it's a report from 2005, it's not supposed to be updated |
| 00:26 | <boblet> | cool :) |
| 00:26 | <daedb> | There was a <date> element in 2005? |
| 00:26 | <Hixie> | it became <time> iirc |
| 00:26 | <Hixie> | or was it <t>? |
| 00:26 | <Hixie> | i forget |
| 00:27 | <boblet> | daedb: yeah I was surprised too :) |
| 00:28 | <daedb> | I know I've seen that page before, but don't remember the date element link :) |
| 00:29 | <boblet> | still looking for the email that introduces those changes to WHATWG list, but knowing the report is the basis is a good start |
| 05:14 | <boblet> | Hixie: re: class="link" in the popular class name survey, I doubt this is the reason but I sometimes use <a class="img-link"><img></a>, as I tend to use border-bottom over text-decoration:underline, and need to turn that off when the link content is an image |
| 05:15 | <boblet> | hopefully this won’t be necessary once the CSS3 text-decoration:underline extra properties are implemented (distance from text, color, line style/thickness etc) |
| 07:58 | <Hixie> | gotta love leif's simple view of the world |
| 14:20 | <henrikbjorn> | is it allowed to have mutiple aside's for example in a div#sidebar ? |
| 15:07 | <boblet> | henrikbjorn: sure. but it might be better to put multiple <section>s in an <aside id="sidebar">… |
| 15:09 | <boblet> | Hixie: re: the 2005 Web Authoring Stats, I’d be interested in the data for the current web. It’s been almost 5 years, so the differences would be interesting |
| 15:11 | <boblet> | Hixie: Also it’d be interesting to specifically check for class names that might indicate a page made with best practices — things like clearfix, group, amp — and see if the code from that small fraction of pages is different to the norm |
| 15:12 | <boblet> | Hixie: finally if you really want to blue-sky it I bet www-style would love something similar for CSS |
| 15:14 | <boblet> | Hixie: oh, sitename as id on body (eg <body id="whatwg-org">) would be another indicator |
| 15:19 | <henrikbjorn> | boblet: but the content in the sidebar is blocks/widgets with fx a list of recent items an ad or a tip of some sort |
| 15:20 | <henrikbjorn> | would that still be valid in a aside ?? |
| 15:20 | <henrikbjorn> | with multiple sections |
| 15:20 | <boblet> | henrikbjorn: <aside> can contain other sectioning elements, such as multiple <section> elements |
| 15:21 | <henrikbjorn> | yeah but i thought aside was for referencing stuff on the page |
| 15:21 | <henrikbjorn> | and theese things are not related to the content |
| 15:21 | <boblet> | the thing to ask yourself is whether the content in the <aside> is related to the section/article it’s in, and whether the content is not essential to the understanding of the main content |
| 15:22 | <boblet> | aah |
| 15:23 | <henrikbjorn> | hopefully what i just wrote makes sense >P |
| 15:23 | <boblet> | if it’s unrelated to the main content (which is presumably in <article), then in an <aside> that’s a sibling of <article> (ie an <aside> that’s related to <body>) may be the way to go |
| 15:24 | <henrikbjorn> | okay :) |
| 15:24 | <henrikbjorn> | i think i get it now |
| 15:24 | <henrikbjorn> | thanks a lot |
| 15:25 | <boblet> | <body>…<article></article><aside></aside></body> is a page-level aside (applies to the page)… |
| 15:25 | <boblet> | <body>…<article><aside></aside></article></body> the aside applies to the article content |
| 15:26 | <henrikbjorn> | ohh |
| 15:26 | <henrikbjorn> | ahh :D |
| 15:26 | <boblet> | you can see an example of a page aside in the second code sample here: http://oli.jp/2009/html5-structure4/#article-page |
| 15:26 | <henrikbjorn> | then a aside related to body is the way to go |
| 15:27 | <henrikbjorn> | all this new stuff is hard >P |
| 15:28 | <boblet> | at the top of that page the coding style pulldown is in an aside that’s in <article>, because it’s related to the article (not the page) |
| 15:28 | <boblet> | heh, it gets easier |
| 15:28 | <boblet> | to give a simple example, you know how in HTML 4 <address> was only for the contact info for the page right? |
| 15:29 | <boblet> | in HTML5 you can also use <address> in an <article>, and when you do it becomes contact info for the article only. |
| 15:29 | <boblet> | both elements are scoped by their context — what they apply to depends on what they’re inside |
| 15:30 | <boblet> | Think Russian nested dolls… in cute little angle brackets ;-) |
| 15:32 | <henrikbjorn> | :p |
| 15:32 | <henrikbjorn> | thanks againg :) |
| 15:34 | <boblet> | henrikbjorn: np. if you have probs or questions this is a pretty good place to ask. after that check www.html5doctor.com, www.diveintohtml5.com, or even www.oli.jp ;-) |
| 15:35 | <henrikbjorn> | bookmarked .D |
| 15:35 | <henrikbjorn> | :D |
| 15:41 | <boblet> | henrikbjorn: (conflict of interest statement: I’m writing for two of them :) ) |
| 15:41 | <henrikbjorn> | :) |
| 16:09 | <henrikbjorn> | is this valid / makes sense ? https://gist.github.com/92e7383a585cc0e1523f |
| 16:35 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: You'll be pleased to know I'm now listening to death metal to put certain other songs out of my head |
| 21:05 | <paul_irish> | anyone remember that trailer thats being used instead of bigbuckbunny in html5 demos recently? |
| 21:09 | <paul_irish> | Sintel ! http://durian.blender.org/download/ |
| 21:28 | <aliok_> | hello everyone |
| 21:29 | <gsnedders> | 'ello |
| 21:29 | <aliok_> | I am working on HTML5 support for MyFaces2 (the open JavaServer Faces implemenatation), and I want to ask something |
| 21:30 | <aliok_> | I saw there is a term "boolean attribute" in HTML5 spec |
| 21:30 | <aliok_> | the problem is |
| 21:30 | <aliok_> | I mean, I want to ask if I understood correctly |
| 21:32 | <Hixie> | aliok_: you have to ask the question to get an answer :-) |
| 21:33 | <Hixie> | aliok_: there's a lot of people who just look in every few hours and answer anything they see that they can answer |
| 21:33 | <aliok_> | I must write draggable="true" if I need to make a component draggable, while I must write controls="controls" to show the controls. |
| 21:33 | <aliok_> | I am sure these difference makes sense, but I couldn't find out. |
| 21:36 | <aliok_> | why don't HTML5 does not accept "true" and "false" as a value of a boolean attribute? |
| 21:37 | <Hixie> | historical reasons from sgml (1986) |
| 21:37 | <Hixie> | draggable="" isn't a boolean attribute |
| 21:38 | <Hixie> | we really should rename "Boolean attribute" to something else |
| 21:38 | <aliok_> | :) |
| 21:43 | <aliok_> | yes, I've learnt that. I was very mad at Chrome when it didn't allow me to drag with draggable="draggable" :) But it was right! |
| 21:43 | <aliok_> | thank you, <Hixie> |
| 21:44 | <Hixie> | np |