We Doctors like the proposed HTML5 logo from the W3C; it’s down there, glistening in our footer. But we think that the definition of HTML5 that the W3C offers is too broad to be useful.
The clinic is busy as ever with more HTML5 ills. This week, we’ll cover marking up Wikipedia infoboxes, anchors in
<figure> for avatars, header(s), and how to use
Through our handy Ask The Doctor service, we get a lot of e-mails asking us about HTML5’s effect on Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). While we can’t answer in great detail (Messrs Google, Yahoo, Bing, and their friends haven’t sent us in-depth details of their algorithms), we’ve rounded up some useful facts from Google, the world’s most dominant search engine.
Here’s nice and simple Simplquiz for Christmas. Imagine a new site, with a news item in an
<article> element. Within that are several user-submitted comments, each of which is in its own
<article> element, as the spec recommends. Most commenting systems ask the commenter for his/ her URL, which is published in the header of the comment, usually as a link with the commenter’s name as the linked text.
<abbr> element is not new to HTML5, nor has it been redefined. The HTML5 spec has, however, removed the
<acronym> element, which was (and is) common in HTML 4 web pages. Simply put, instead of using
The clinic is getting busy with more HTML5 ailments. This week, we’ll cover questions about aside, blogging platforms, stylesheet links, id attribute validation and a mammoth semantic journey.
You’ve already learned about the
<canvas> elements, but did you know that they were designed to be used together? In fact, the two elements are absolutely wondrous when you combine them together. I’m going to show off a few super-simple demos using the two elements together, which should help suggest cool future projects for you fellow web authors.
This is a bit of a special Simplequiz this week. Simon Pieters, who works on multimedia QA for Opera and is one of those working on the HTML5 spec, asked us to run a quiz that would help the spec writers decide on a new aspect of the language.
A few years ago, Dan Cederholm published a series of articles called Simplequiz in which he posed some options for marking up a specified piece of content and invited readers to choose the one they felt was the best way to mark that up. The value was in the comments in which people said why they made that choice and debated the options (which means it is THE LAW that you read the preceeding comments before adding your own).