5 ms·

Author here. Glad you like it. > data-x attributes will destroy your W3C validator checks. Use them if that's not important. (sometimes it just is...) Are you

by cancan 14y ago

Author here. Glad you like it. > data-x attributes will destroy your W3C validator checks. Use them if that's not important. (sometimes it just is...) Are you sure that is still the case if you have the HTML5 doctype?

ashray 14y ago
It should work fine with HTML5 :) Just that HTML5 is not actually a proper spec yet..
- eli 14y ago
  Aside from possibly hurting the W3C Validator's feelings, does that matter?
  - ashray 14y ago
    Some companies policies require validation and they require specs that are nailed down. In those cases you'd end up using HTML <5 and that won't validate with data-x.
    - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
      In that case, decline to work with said company.
    - eli 14y ago
      I understand the allure of an objective way to evaluate the "quality" of your code... but that seems ridiculously naive. I'm pretty confident I could come up with something that uses features in the spec that nobody ever implemented, so it would be fully validated and correct and yet totally nonfunctional for actual users.
    - Andrex 14y ago
      I'm curious why you wouldn't use <!doctype html>? Are you using something in XHTML that's deprecated in HTML5? Those are few and far between.
- batista 14y ago
  Then the validator is not really a proper validator yet. It's 2012. HTML5 is a proper spec alright...
  - cancan 14y ago
    That is how I feel too. Never had any issues with HTML5.
  - ashray 14y ago
    HTML5 is a working draft spec. It hasn't been finalised yet. This isn't usually important for most of us but companies that like calling themselves ISO900X etc etc. don't usually want to work with draft specs. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ It'll probably be finalised by 2014. I don't get the down votes, if you don't agree then why not ask/explain why ?
    - richbradshaw 14y ago
      The downvotes (I didn't even know you could downvote here!) are likely disagreeing with the idea of validating as a talisman. "It validates! Yay, it must work!". As HTML5 formalises much of what already exists, it's hard to move to HTML5 and break things - HTML5 isn't just video, audio, canvas etc, it's also a more sane doctype, ability to omit attributes that only ever have one value (type on script elements for instance), ability to nest things inside anchors etc. Also, as we all know by now, XHTML doesn't make any sense with the browsers that exist – particularly as it's rarely actually valid XML, and even rarer, sent with the right MIME. In short, XHTML doesn't exist in any practical sense and HTML5 subsumes HTML4 + modifying the stupid bits to fit with what browsers actually do. There isn't really any logical reason to not use HTML5 syntax, though of course, using the new features can be problematic. I understand that your logic for validating is likely your companies decision and not your own view, and I'm not attacking your values or opinions in anyway.

by cancan 14y ago

ashray 14y ago

It should work fine with HTML5 :) Just that HTML5 is not actually a proper spec yet..

eli 14y ago
Aside from possibly hurting the W3C Validator's feelings, does that matter?
- ashray 14y ago
  Some companies policies require validation and they require specs that are nailed down. In those cases you'd end up using HTML <5 and that won't validate with data-x.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    In that case, decline to work with said company.
  - eli 14y ago
    I understand the allure of an objective way to evaluate the "quality" of your code... but that seems ridiculously naive. I'm pretty confident I could come up with something that uses features in the spec that nobody ever implemented, so it would be fully validated and correct and yet totally nonfunctional for actual users.
  - Andrex 14y ago
    I'm curious why you wouldn't use <!doctype html>? Are you using something in XHTML that's deprecated in HTML5? Those are few and far between.
batista 14y ago
Then the validator is not really a proper validator yet. It's 2012. HTML5 is a proper spec alright...
- cancan 14y ago
  That is how I feel too. Never had any issues with HTML5.
- ashray 14y ago
  HTML5 is a working draft spec. It hasn't been finalised yet. This isn't usually important for most of us but companies that like calling themselves ISO900X etc etc. don't usually want to work with draft specs. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ It'll probably be finalised by 2014. I don't get the down votes, if you don't agree then why not ask/explain why ?
  - richbradshaw 14y ago
    The downvotes (I didn't even know you could downvote here!) are likely disagreeing with the idea of validating as a talisman. "It validates! Yay, it must work!". As HTML5 formalises much of what already exists, it's hard to move to HTML5 and break things - HTML5 isn't just video, audio, canvas etc, it's also a more sane doctype, ability to omit attributes that only ever have one value (type on script elements for instance), ability to nest things inside anchors etc. Also, as we all know by now, XHTML doesn't make any sense with the browsers that exist – particularly as it's rarely actually valid XML, and even rarer, sent with the right MIME. In short, XHTML doesn't exist in any practical sense and HTML5 subsumes HTML4 + modifying the stupid bits to fit with what browsers actually do. There isn't really any logical reason to not use HTML5 syntax, though of course, using the new features can be problematic. I understand that your logic for validating is likely your companies decision and not your own view, and I'm not attacking your values or opinions in anyway.