Talk:HTML5: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer (more about the introduction) |
imported>Pat Palmer |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==overall comments== | ==overall comments== | ||
This is a great beginning. The article as it stands today covers a lot of ground. It might also benefit from additional | This is a great beginning. The article as it stands today covers a lot of ground. It might also benefit from additional development; some ideas for this are detailed in the following subsections:[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
===tables from Wikipedia=== | ===tables from Wikipedia=== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===introduction=== | ===introduction=== | ||
I think the date of first availability of a concrete, finished proposal version which browsers could implement needs to appear right at the top of the article, as well as the timeframe in which early adoption began (and by whom). But | I think the date of first availability of a concrete, finished proposal version which browsers could implement needs to appear right at the top of the article, as well as the timeframe in which early adoption began (and by whom). But the intro is already too long, so maybe "early and widespread adoption" needs to become its own section. I'd like to find a way to incorporate all the information in the final paragraph into the introduction, but in a more concise manner. The early and eager of adoption of the proposal is relevant to the overview of the article. Something needs to be done to distill the essential points into a couple of paragraphs that introduce the article with a dramatic flair, and the rest of the info needs to be shunted off into different sections of the article.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
:The Wikipedia article, currently much skimpier than this one, nevertheless is closer to having an elegant introduction. We can't just take that text, but that is the kind of introduction I would like to see | :The Wikipedia article, currently much skimpier than this one, nevertheless is closer to having an elegant introduction. We can't just take that text, but that is the kind of introduction I would like to see--not more than 2-3 paragraphs of no more than moderate length--stating succinctly what the article is about, when the technology arose, and why it's important.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
===WHATWG and W3C=== | ===WHATWG and W3C=== | ||
I think the process of creating the proposal for HTML5--including the splinter group WHATWG, which seems to have integrated back into W3C somewhat--needs to be revisited. The reasons for | I think the process of creating the proposal for HTML5--including the splinter group WHATWG, which seems to have integrated back into W3C somewhat--needs to be revisited. The reasons for discontent with the XHTML standard are not clearly elucidated (IMO). Also, there might be a sort of slight slant towards parroting the "party line" of the WHATWG companies, so it's important (I think) to try to describe the disputes in a neutral manner and not fall into the trap of cheer-leading one group or the other. As with all web technologies, after all, early and widespread adoption will settle any disputes.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
===screen shots=== | ===screen shots=== | ||
Latest revision as of 07:32, 17 August 2010
overall comments
This is a great beginning. The article as it stands today covers a lot of ground. It might also benefit from additional development; some ideas for this are detailed in the following subsections:Pat Palmer 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
tables from Wikipedia
I'd really like to see these tables removed, as they are (although "attributed") pretty much complete duplicates. Let's consider substituting a paraphrase instead (maybe just a list?), and then adding to the references page a blurb directing people specifically to the tables in the Wikipedia articles where they reside. Or something. Just reproducing them here is not going to be helpful, as they will soon be out of date and there are not as many eyes looking to keep them updated as in Wikipedia.Pat Palmer 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
introduction
I think the date of first availability of a concrete, finished proposal version which browsers could implement needs to appear right at the top of the article, as well as the timeframe in which early adoption began (and by whom). But the intro is already too long, so maybe "early and widespread adoption" needs to become its own section. I'd like to find a way to incorporate all the information in the final paragraph into the introduction, but in a more concise manner. The early and eager of adoption of the proposal is relevant to the overview of the article. Something needs to be done to distill the essential points into a couple of paragraphs that introduce the article with a dramatic flair, and the rest of the info needs to be shunted off into different sections of the article.Pat Palmer 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article, currently much skimpier than this one, nevertheless is closer to having an elegant introduction. We can't just take that text, but that is the kind of introduction I would like to see--not more than 2-3 paragraphs of no more than moderate length--stating succinctly what the article is about, when the technology arose, and why it's important.Pat Palmer 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
WHATWG and W3C
I think the process of creating the proposal for HTML5--including the splinter group WHATWG, which seems to have integrated back into W3C somewhat--needs to be revisited. The reasons for discontent with the XHTML standard are not clearly elucidated (IMO). Also, there might be a sort of slight slant towards parroting the "party line" of the WHATWG companies, so it's important (I think) to try to describe the disputes in a neutral manner and not fall into the trap of cheer-leading one group or the other. As with all web technologies, after all, early and widespread adoption will settle any disputes.Pat Palmer 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
screen shots
This article is just crying out for some screens hots showing HTML5 code in a table, along with a graphic showing how it is rendered in a particular browser. This could be done near the top of the article--showing something new right away to help "grab" the reader.Pat Palmer 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
reorg ideas
The "history" section might need to merged or combined, or at least placed near to, the "Standardization process" section.
technical vs. social and political significance
Possibly, it would be better to cover these in bits spread throughout the article, and let the article be organized around technical and timeline issues. That said, I much appreciate the effort to include this kind of information. It could also be made to be a little more neutral sounding; some parts sound to me like an advertisement for the agenda of certain parties in WHATWG. Ideally, CZ would be like a reporter who (maybe infuriating practically everyone) insists on telling how all the different parties in a dispute "spin" their claims.Pat Palmer 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
element categories
In the "Brief Overview" section, second paragraph, I would considering making the list of categories into an actual list, as these are quite significant to someone attempting to get oriented with HTML5.Pat Palmer 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
SGML
The long quote about not being SGML compliant at the end of "Brief Overview" is confusing to me. Probably, I don't know enough about this topic, but why does this matter? After reading the quote a couple of times, I still don't understand the issue. I thought the point of using a validator site was to guarantee that your page supports XHTML fully, so that browsers may be expected to be more likely to handle the content correctly. What am I missing? Will there be no validators for HTML5? Please consider rewriting this to explain what it's about; I'm not exactly a newbie, I'm about intermediate with web development at present, and I just didn't get this.Pat Palmer 22:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
ordering of sections
Maybe it would be nice to place the description of the language high in the article (soon after the overview), and then the discussion of the proposal's history and politics after all that. It might be easier for a person just beginning with HTML5 to assimilate in that order. Otherwise, the criticisms of older standards might not make as much sense until the alternative has been shown.Pat Palmer 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)