Part 1 of a few.<\/p>\n
It seems that everyone has started talking about HTML5<\/a>. I’ve recently converted sfsfw.org<\/a> (still a work in progress) to HTML5 (ditto) and built a microsite at work<\/a> in the language.<\/p>\n So, what parts of the brave new world am I embracing?<\/p>\nThe new doctype<\/h2>\n
<!DOCTYPE html><\/code>, well that will save a few bytes per page. I’ve never tried to type a doctype from memory before, I’ve always cut and pasted from another project or from an authoritative source, but now I might just type it, saving a few seconds. I can’t help feeling that the lack of versioning information is a making a problem for the future (and let’s not get into the related area of all the things that HTML doctypes do\/mean in comparison with what SGML or XML doctypes are meant to mean…).<\/p>\nThe new character encoding<\/h2>\n
<meta charset=\"utf-8\" \/><\/code>, again that will save a few bytes on those pages where I bother to include a meta tag rather than just trusting to the HTTP header (and I know why the belt and braces approach is useful, so long as they both tell the same story).<\/p>\nThe new block level elements<\/h2>\n
<section><\/code>, <article><\/code>, <header><\/code>, <footer><\/code>, <aside><\/code> and <nav><\/code>. These are rather cool. Not immediataly earth shaking but they make code cleaner and debugging easier – less often will I be staring at <\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/code> and wondering whether my current problem is caused by having too few or too many closing div tags.<\/p>\nThe new input types<\/h2>\n