On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM, PlatonidesPlatonides@gmail.com wrote:
I support using html 5 new features, but I don't like the idea of starting to strip tags "just because we can". Currently MediaWiki does quite a good work on it. I don't see a reason to start removing tags. Yes, allegdely there's an space improvement but still...
It's something to consider. It will improve not only space, but also readability. Here's the doctype and <head> for http://aryeh.name/, in valid HTML 5:
<!doctype html> <link rel=stylesheet href=/css/main.css> <title>Risen from Prey ✡ מטרף עלה</title> <!--[if IE]><script src=/html5ie.js></script><![endif]-->
That's it. Here's what it would have to be in XHTML 1.0 Transitional:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/main.css" type="text/css" /> <title>Risen from Prey ✡ מטרף עלה</title> <!--[if IE]><script src="/html5ie.js" type="text/javascript"></script><![endif]--> </head>
And that's even omitting the extra <meta> tags I'd need to use if I had inline style and script, which would make it:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/main.css" type="text/css" /> <title>Risen from Prey ✡ מטרף עלה</title> <!--[if IE]><script src="/html5ie.js" type="text/javascript"></script><![endif]--> <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" contents="text/css" /> <meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" contents="text/javascript" /> </head>
Look at those two side by side for a minute, the first and the third, and tell me there's no reason to go with the first one if there's demonstrably no difference in how browsers treat them. Improving legibility for human readers of our HTML source isn't a *major* goal, but I don't think we should disregard it entirely, especially when there are modest size improvements to be had as well. The only reason I can think of to avoid it other than "leave well enough alone" is for the sake of screen-scraping bots.
Perhaps we should also look into alternative solutions like SDCH.
SDCH is not going to be usable anytime in the foreseeable future, AFAICT.
I see the "Attribute name not allowed on element a at this point." has been taken care of at r52963 Interestingly, it had been removed in r38323 and readded by Simetrical in r45418.
r45418 didn't re-add it, actually, it was r38328.
:)