Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix issues #5 and #13 #23

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: gh-pages
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix issues #5 and #13 #23

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

cshaa
Copy link
Contributor

@cshaa cshaa commented Aug 12, 2013

Update html:meta, split html:link and html:a to html:alter, html:include, html:link and html:anch

Closes #13
Closes #5

@OscarGodson
Copy link
Owner

@m93a without a target tho how would JavaScript know the target of the element? A common use case: http://www.ajaxf1.com/tutorial/ajax-file-upload-tutorial.html


This links external documents and scripts such as CSS, JavaScript, RSS, favicons, etc. to the current document. Equivalent to the current `<link>` tag. This tag takes the following attributes:
This links document's alternatives in other formats, eg. PDF, RTF, RSS or Atom feed. It's similar to the current HTML `link` tag.
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why would you have a different link just for documents? Why shouldn't the browser handle the displaying of these like it does now? What's considered an "alternative document" and how would you know what is and isn't one?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Current "link" was made to do that but little by little it became more of "include" than a real link. If you use as a reference to RSS, the browser just shows feed button and doesn't even download the file. But if you use it as a link to css stylesheet, browser downloads the file, includes it to the page and changes its content.

In layman's terms: include changes the document, alter doesn't


Or maybe we can use meta instead of alter?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, basically this link just forces a download?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm assuming, yes? If so there's no need for an entirely different element for that. Just have a like download attribute that's already in HTML now.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

include = make it a part of this document

@cshaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

cshaa commented Aug 12, 2013

Now, my pull request should point to _includes/HTML6.md, not README.md

- `name`
- `target` (can be `blank`, `parent`, `top` or `self`)
- `href`: The link to the target document, can be relative or absolute.
- `target`: Which window will open the document (can be `blank`, `parent`, `top` or `self`, default is `self`). **This attribute is obsolete**.
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OscarGodson:

@m93a without a target tho how would JavaScript know the target of the element?
A common use case:
http://www.ajaxf1.com/tutorial/ajax-file-upload-tutorial.html

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@OscarGodson
I would make a <button> with onclick and use JavaScript XMLHttpRequest and File API.
A common use case:
http://www.matlus.com/html5-file-upload-with-progress/

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you only have to support new browsers, that'd be fine :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Old browsers won't support HTML6 :)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oscar HTML6 doesn't have to worry about backwards compatibility because that would be up to the browsers.

@cshaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

cshaa commented Aug 31, 2013

@OscarGodson would you merge it to the master, please?

@OscarGodson
Copy link
Owner

I'm still waiting on responses from you in the PR :) I'm not sold on your explanation of link and removing a.

@cshaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

cshaa commented Sep 17, 2013

Oh, that's a reaction to #5. It's about splitting html:a to html:anch and html:link.

</html:html>
```

##### `<html:anch>`
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could make this into it's own PR and ask people how they like it, but I don't see any benefit to this over just allowing a/link. In both cases it makes semantic sense. If we had a link element it'd mean link to this page, and this section. You'd also need links like http://someothersite.com/#foo to work anyway so making them totally different links seems confusing.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think if you remove this and make it it's own PR and get feedback I'll accept the PR :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, rollback to html:a done. Adding "for" attribute to it so you can link elements using css selectors. It would be great to have a possibility to link somebody to the third div.rc of google.com/#q=foo.

As OscarGodson said:
You could make this into it's own PR and ask people how they like it, but I don't see any benefit to this over just allowing a/link. In both cases it makes semantic sense. If we had a link element it'd mean link to this page, and this section. You'd also need links like http://someothersite.com/#foo to work anyway so making them totally different links seems confusing.
@cshaa
Copy link
Contributor Author

cshaa commented Oct 9, 2013

@OscarGodson is there anything you don't agree with? :)
Actually, writing specifications began to be a good fun for me, so I'm ready to correct it.

@risenomore
Copy link

"This begins an HTML's head. Equivelent to the current <html> tag."

Should read: "This begins an HTML's head. Equivelent to the current <head> tag."

@risenomore True story :)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Cleaner meta tags Anchors should be anchors, links should be links, and includes should be includes.
4 participants