3 ms·

Javascript? CSS? You don't need all that crap. Boilerplate is supposed to be stuff you can't do without, not a bunch of froo-froo frivolities to cater to ancien

Javascript? CSS? You don't need all that crap. Boilerplate is supposed to be stuff you can't do without, not a bunch of froo-froo frivolities to cater to ancient browsers. Here's all the HTML5 boilerplate you need: <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> </body> </html>

po 16y ago
Yeah! and why even bother closing that </html>? Google doesn't. Hell, why bother with it at all? And why assume the developer wants english? Here's the real html5 boilerplate: <!DOCTYPE html> <meta charset=utf-8> <title>Title!</title> <p>Content! I left in the charset=utf-8 to prevent the utf-7 security vulnerability. That's important. I think I'll go check this into github. :-D
catshirt 16y ago
not that i prefer it this way, but w3 seceded when they renamed html5 to html. thus, i'd say javascript and css actually are very much a part of html5 now.
coderdude 16y ago
Did you even click the link? http://csswizardry.com/2011/01/the-real-html5-boilerplate/#html5-boilerplate http://csswizardry.com/2011/01/the-real-html5-boilerplate/#h... It's extremely minimalist as it is. Your example is lacking of things you would want to include such as at least specifying the charset.
- jmillikin 16y ago
  Yes, I clicked the link. I see no reason why so-called boilerplate includes JavaScript, <meta> tags, and a whole bunch of CSS. If you want to display non-ASCII characters, use XHTML5 -- trying to get Unicode working portably in HTML5 isn't worth the grey hair.
  - coderdude 16y ago
    It includes the reset CSS so that you can get your design working consistently across UAs. The JS was included so you could use the fancy new HTML5 in old versions of IE. Seems like a reasonable include. The reset CSS is basically mandatory either way, regardless of what version of HTML you use. I'm not sure what you mean by getting Unicode to work in HTML5. UTF-8 encoding is pretty universal at this point and not dependent on your markup version -- not to mention the existence of character entities. There's a Unicode entity on this very page and this site doesn't even use a doctype: ♥
    - rdrimmie 16y ago
      I strongly suspect jmillikin is taking the piss and the tone may not be being transmitted with the text. It is the same argument as the article itself, reductio ad absurdum.

po 16y ago

Yeah! and why even bother closing that </html>? Google doesn't. Hell, why bother with it at all? And why assume the developer wants english? Here's the real html5 boilerplate: <!DOCTYPE html> <meta charset=utf-8> <title>Title!</title> <p>Content! I left in the charset=utf-8 to prevent the utf-7 security vulnerability. That's important. I think I'll go check this into github. :-D

catshirt 16y ago

not that i prefer it this way, but w3 seceded when they renamed html5 to html. thus, i'd say javascript and css actually are very much a part of html5 now.

coderdude 16y ago

Did you even click the link? http://csswizardry.com/2011/01/the-real-html5-boilerplate/#html5-boilerplate http://csswizardry.com/2011/01/the-real-html5-boilerplate/#h... It's extremely minimalist as it is. Your example is lacking of things you would want to include such as at least specifying the charset.

jmillikin 16y ago
Yes, I clicked the link. I see no reason why so-called boilerplate includes JavaScript, <meta> tags, and a whole bunch of CSS. If you want to display non-ASCII characters, use XHTML5 -- trying to get Unicode working portably in HTML5 isn't worth the grey hair.
- coderdude 16y ago
  It includes the reset CSS so that you can get your design working consistently across UAs. The JS was included so you could use the fancy new HTML5 in old versions of IE. Seems like a reasonable include. The reset CSS is basically mandatory either way, regardless of what version of HTML you use. I'm not sure what you mean by getting Unicode to work in HTML5. UTF-8 encoding is pretty universal at this point and not dependent on your markup version -- not to mention the existence of character entities. There's a Unicode entity on this very page and this site doesn't even use a doctype: ♥
  - rdrimmie 16y ago
    I strongly suspect jmillikin is taking the piss and the tone may not be being transmitted with the text. It is the same argument as the article itself, reductio ad absurdum.