Talk:HTML5: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer (some comments on the article (not finished yet)) |
imported>Pat Palmer (more comments) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===introduction=== | ===introduction=== | ||
I'd like to find a way to incorporate all the information in the final paragraph into the introduction, but in a more concise manner. The early and eager of adoption of the proposal is relevant to the overview of the article. That said, the introduction ("overview") as it now stands is already too long. Something needs to be done to distill the essential points into a couple of paragraphs that introduce the article with a dramatic flair, and the rest of the info needs to be shunted off into different sections of the article.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | I think the date of first availability of a concrete, finished proposal version which browsers could implement needs to appear right at the top of the article, as well as the timeframe in which early adoption began (and by whom). But it needs to be shorter intro, so many "early and widespread adoption" needs to become its own section. I'd like to find a way to incorporate all the information in the final paragraph into the introduction, but in a more concise manner. The early and eager of adoption of the proposal is relevant to the overview of the article. That said, the introduction ("overview") as it now stands is already too long. Something needs to be done to distill the essential points into a couple of paragraphs that introduce the article with a dramatic flair, and the rest of the info needs to be shunted off into different sections of the article.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
===WHATWG and W3C=== | ===WHATWG and W3C=== | ||
I think the process of creating the proposal for HTML5--including the splinter group WHATWG, which seems to have integrated back into W3C somewhat--needs to be revisited. The reasons for discontent with the XHTML standard are not clearly elucidated (IMO). Also, there might be a sort of slight slant towards parroting the "party line" of the WHATWG companies, so it's important (I think) to try to describe the disputes in a neutral manner and not fall into the trap of cheer-leading one group or the other. As with all web technologies, after all, early and widespread adoption will settle any disputes.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | I think the process of creating the proposal for HTML5--including the splinter group WHATWG, which seems to have integrated back into W3C somewhat--needs to be revisited. The reasons for discontent with the XHTML standard are not clearly elucidated (IMO). Also, there might be a sort of slight slant towards parroting the "party line" of the WHATWG companies, so it's important (I think) to try to describe the disputes in a neutral manner and not fall into the trap of cheer-leading one group or the other. As with all web technologies, after all, early and widespread adoption will settle any disputes.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
===screen shots=== | |||
This article is just crying out for some screens hots showing HTML5 code in a table, along with a graphic showing how it is rendered in a particular browser. This could be done near the top of the article--showing something new right away to help "grab" the reader.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
===reorg ideas=== | |||
The "history" section might need to merged or combined, or at least placed near to, the "Standardization process" section. | |||
===technical vs. social and political significance=== | |||
Possibly, it would be better to cover these in bits spread throughout the article, and let the article be organized around technical and timeline issues. That said, I much appreciate the effort to include this kind of information. It could also be made to be a little more neutral sounding; some parts sound to me like an advertisement for the agenda of certain parties in WHATWG. Ideally, CZ would be like a reporter who (maybe infuriating practically everyone) insists on telling how all the different parties in a dispute "spin" their claims.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:32, 16 August 2010
overall comments
This is a great beginning. The article as it stands today covers a lot of ground. It might also benefit from additional developement; some ideas for this are detailed in the following subsections (to be added shortly):Pat Palmer 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
tables from Wikipedia
I'd really like to see these tables removed, as they are (although "attributed") pretty much complete duplicates. Let's consider substituting a paraphrase instead (maybe just a list?), and then adding to the references page a blurb directing people specifically to the tables in the Wikipedia articles where they reside. Or something. Just reproducing them here is not going to be helpful, as they will soon be out of date and there are not as many eyes looking to keep them updated as in Wikipedia.Pat Palmer 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
introduction
I think the date of first availability of a concrete, finished proposal version which browsers could implement needs to appear right at the top of the article, as well as the timeframe in which early adoption began (and by whom). But it needs to be shorter intro, so many "early and widespread adoption" needs to become its own section. I'd like to find a way to incorporate all the information in the final paragraph into the introduction, but in a more concise manner. The early and eager of adoption of the proposal is relevant to the overview of the article. That said, the introduction ("overview") as it now stands is already too long. Something needs to be done to distill the essential points into a couple of paragraphs that introduce the article with a dramatic flair, and the rest of the info needs to be shunted off into different sections of the article.Pat Palmer 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
WHATWG and W3C
I think the process of creating the proposal for HTML5--including the splinter group WHATWG, which seems to have integrated back into W3C somewhat--needs to be revisited. The reasons for discontent with the XHTML standard are not clearly elucidated (IMO). Also, there might be a sort of slight slant towards parroting the "party line" of the WHATWG companies, so it's important (I think) to try to describe the disputes in a neutral manner and not fall into the trap of cheer-leading one group or the other. As with all web technologies, after all, early and widespread adoption will settle any disputes.Pat Palmer 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
screen shots
This article is just crying out for some screens hots showing HTML5 code in a table, along with a graphic showing how it is rendered in a particular browser. This could be done near the top of the article--showing something new right away to help "grab" the reader.Pat Palmer 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
reorg ideas
The "history" section might need to merged or combined, or at least placed near to, the "Standardization process" section.
technical vs. social and political significance
Possibly, it would be better to cover these in bits spread throughout the article, and let the article be organized around technical and timeline issues. That said, I much appreciate the effort to include this kind of information. It could also be made to be a little more neutral sounding; some parts sound to me like an advertisement for the agenda of certain parties in WHATWG. Ideally, CZ would be like a reporter who (maybe infuriating practically everyone) insists on telling how all the different parties in a dispute "spin" their claims.Pat Palmer 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)