In the last few months there has been increased discussion about some of the new elements that have been introduced in the HTML5 draft specification. This entry is primarily a counter argument to some of the comments that I disagree with.

The most recent and high-profile comments in regard to parts of the HTML5 specification come from The HTML5 Super Friends in an article entitled Guide to HTML5 Hiccups. It lays out their concerns with the HTML5 draft specification as it stood at the time of its writing and I am largely going to focus on the issues they have discussed.

The article and section elements

The first argument that I disagree with is that the article and section elements are redundant and, therefore, that the article element should be dropped.

article and section are identical except that article allows a pubdate attribute. We would suggest that article be dropped and section be adapted to allow an optional pubdate attribute or, even better, more explicit metadata.

The article and section elements are not identical according the to HTML5 draft specification. Here is what it says about the section element as of 13 September 2009:

The section element represents a generic document or application section. A section, in this context, is a thematic grouping of content, typically with a heading, possibly with a footer.

Now contrast that with what it says about the the article element:

The article element represents a section of a page that consists of a composition that forms an independent part of a document, page, application, or site.

An article element is “independent” in the sense that its contents could stand alone, for example in syndication, or as a interchangeable component on a user-configurable portal page.

That is a clear distinction that resists the reading of article and section being “identical”. The article element has a specific purpose: to mark parts of a document that form an independent composition that may be appropriate for syndication. It is a special kind of sectioning element that performs an essential role that is lacking in the semantics of the generic section element. This generic element serves only to thematically group content. That grouping may occur at the document level, within an independent article, or within a footer.

The article element has unique semantics and practical use. There is a fundamental conceptual difference between stand-alone compositions and sections of compositions, documents, or pages and this difference should be recognised and catered for in the specification. Websites regularly employ microformats and you don’t have to look far to see independent compositions currently marked up with class="hentry" or find links to individual blog comments and twitter updates. There is clearly a need for an easy way to define independent compositions and that is met with the introduction of the article element in HTML5.

What may be needed is a stronger clarification and definition of the article element to minimise the potential for this distinction to be overlooked and to highlight the differences from a generic document section.

The hgroup element

The hgroup element is a relatively recent addition to the draft specification. It is defined as serving a fairly specific purpose:

The hgroup element represents the heading of a section. The element is used to group a set of h1–h6 elements when the heading has multiple levels, such as subheadings, alternative titles, or taglines.

The element works to associate headings together so that the highest ranked heading descendant (if present) of the hgroup element is used as its text in document outlines and summary. Other heading descendants are treated as subheadings and are left out of outlines.

The HTML5 Super Friends have this to say about the hgroup element:

We don’t see the added value of this element and would instead add a boolean attribute to the heading element which allows content authors to specify if that particular heading should be included in the outline.

Bruce Lawson has similar concerns and proposes another alternative – removing the need for a wrapping element and defining a new element specifically for marking up subtitles:

I agree that hgroup is clumsy and likely to be misused. Rather than wrap an h1 and its h2 subtitle in hgroup to keep the subtitle out of the outlining algorithm, I would prefer to use

<header>
<h1>My blog</h1>
<subtitle>My wit and wisdom</subtitle>
</header>

as I think that;s easier to understand than a heading-that’s-not-a-heading, and it removes a wrapping element.

I disagree with these criticisms of the hgroup element and consider the proposed alternatives to be more problematic, less intuitive, less flexible, and further removed from the way in which authors currently markup subheadings.

The way that many authors are currently marking up subheadings is by using headings of various ranks and in various orders depending on whether the subheading or qualifying heading needs to appear above or below the main page heading. A subheading is still, conceptually, a heading of sorts and it cannot be accurately marked up with a paragraph or any other currently available element.

Allowing the addition of a boolean attribute to heading elements has several problems.

1. A boolean attribute may be less intuitive for authors than the hgroup element. The hgroup element relies upon and produces an association between all the headings it contains. Since headings and subheadings occur together and derive their meaning from each other, it is semantic to wrap these headings in an element. We know that the highest ranked heading contains the string to be used in the outline and that the other headings serve as ranked subheadings to this primary heading. A boolean attribute is only associated with the element that it is a part of. We can create no association between the element and adjacent elements. This is related to the next issue.

2. The hgroup itself acts as heading content while a boolean attribute would act only to remove headings from the outline. The hgroup element only removes the descendant headings that are those not of the highest rank. The boolean attribute shifts the burden onto the author to decide which headings should be marked for removal from the outline, rather than providing an element to wrap a collection of headings without authors having to be concerned with (or aware of) issues of outlining.

What about Bruce Lawson’s idea for a subtitle element? I believe that, irrespective of the what this element were actually called, it suffers from similar problems to the idea of using a boolean attribute. There is nothing to prevent the use of a subtitle element away from a heading, it creates no association with other elements, and it does not allow for ranking of subheadings.

One of my key points in relation to criticism of the hgroup element is that subheadings draw their meaning from context. A subheading (as opposed to a section heading) is only a sub-heading if it is associated with a higher ranking heading. Remove the higher ranking heading and what was once a subheading is likely to be understood as a heading.

The strength of the hgroup element over the two alternative suggestions I have referenced is that it is the only proposal that defines a subheading as contextual. I think that it is the most intuitive proposal (although perhaps none of them are particularly inuitive) – the name of the element is self-descriptive and encapsulates the contextual relationship and adjacent positioning of its child elements — and matches most closely with the way that subheadings are currently marked up on many websites.

The aside element

The HTML5 Super Friends are of the opinion that the aside element is not worth including in the specification:

The use cases for aside are too limited to warrant its inclusion in the specification. We were also concerned about potentially duplicating content within an aside.

However, the specification itself provides some fairly compelling uses for the element:

The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other content that is considered separate from the main content of the page.

Authors might use the aside element for their blogrolls, for marking up adverts ranging from google ads on blogs to large banners on enterprise websites, for expanding on themes within an article or providing an extended definition of a term, for pull quotes, and anything else “tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and which could be considered separate from that content”.

Most of these uses would not involve duplication of content. Using the aside element for pull quotes would produce some instances of content duplication. However, this is not really a problem for users who are used to content being duplicated in this way in newspapers and magazines. It would not take much for search engines to adapt to deal with short amounts of duplicate content contained within an aside either. While I appreciate the point about duplicate content I’m not yet convinced that it is actually problematic.

The legend element

The current specification defines the legend element as providing an explanatory caption for the contents of its parent element. The parent element may be a fieldset, figure or details element. However, Remy Sharp‘s article entitled legend not such a legend anymore shows why it is not practical to use legend for the new elements details and figure – because it is not backwards compatible with current browsers and effectively unusable outside of a fieldset because of the inability to style the element.

In this case, forging a new element is most appropriate rather than trying to use an element like label which will only create confusion with little advantage.

Summary

I have discussed my reasons for disagreeing with certain feedback on the HTML5 draft specification. I have yet to be convinced that the article, hgroup, or aside elements should be dropped from the specification because it seems to me that they have necessary uses and advantages over alternatives.

This is an experiment that creates social media icons using CSS and semantic HTML. It uses progressive enhancement to turn an unordered list of text links into a set of icons without the use of images or JavaScript.

Demo: Pure CSS social media icons

Support: Firefox 3.5+, Safari 4+, Chrome 4+, Opera 10+, IE8+.

CSS social media icons

The image below shows you the final appearance in modern browsers.

This experiment starts with a simple list of links, with each link using meaningful text, and then progressively styles each link to take on the appearance of the relevant social media icon. As a result, there should be support for screenreaders or users with CSS disabled.

I’ve also included basic text in the title attribute of each link to provide information for users who may not be familiar with what service a specific icon represents.

This is an experiment that uses CSS 2.1 and CSS3 that is not supported by Internet Explorer 6 and 7, therefore, you shouldn’t expect it to work in those browsers. CSS is not necessarily the most appropriate tool for this kind of thing either.

Example code

The technique I’ve used is much the same as the one used for the Pure CSS speech bubbles.

The HTML is just a basic unordered list of links to various social networking websites or services.

<ul>
   <li class="facebook"><a href="#non" title="Share on Facebook">Facebook</a></li>
   <li class="twitter"><a href="#non" title="Share on Twitter">Twitter</a></li>
   <li class="rss"><a href="#non" title="Subscribe to the RSS feed">RSS</a></li>
   <li class="flickr"><a href="#non" title="Share on Flickr">Flickr</a></li>
   <li class="delicious"><a href="#non" title="Bookmark on Delicious">Delicious</a></li>
   <li class="linkedin"><a href="#non" title="Share on LinkedIn">LinkedIn</a></li>
   <li class="google"><a href="#non" title="Bookmark with Google">Google</a></li>
   <li class="orkut"><a href="#non" title="Share on Orkut">Orkut</a></li>
   <li class="technorati"><a href="#non" title="Add to Technorati">Technorati</a></li>
   <li class="netvibes"><a href="#non" title="Add to NetVibes">NetVibes</a></li>
</ul>

I’ve applied some general styles to the elements that make up this list.

ul {
   list-style:none;
   padding:0;
   margin:0;
   overflow:hidden;
   font:0.875em/1 Arial, sans-serif;
}

ul li {
   float:left;
   width:66px;
   height:66px;
   margin:20px 20px 0 0;
}

ul li a {
   display:block;
   width:64px;
   height:64px;
   overflow:hidden;
   border:1px solid transparent;
   line-height:64px;
   text-decoration:none;
   /* css3 */
   text-shadow:0 -1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5);
   -moz-border-radius:5px;
   -webkit-border-radius:5px;
   border-radius:5px; /* standards version last */
}

ul li a:hover,
ul li a:focus,
ul li a:active {
   opacity:0.8;
   border-color:#000;
}

Each icon uses it’s own set of styles. This is the CSS that created the RSS icon.

.rss a {
   position:relative;
   width:60px;
   padding:0 2px;
   border-color:#ea6635;
   text-transform:lowercase;
   text-indent:-186px;
   font-size:64px;
   font-weight:bold;
   color:#fff;
   background:#e36443;

   /* css3 */
   -moz-box-shadow:0 0 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.4);
   -webkit-box-shadow:0 0 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.4);
   box-shadow:0 0 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.4);
   background:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, from(#f19242), to(#e36443));
   background:-moz-linear-gradient(top, #f19242, #e36443);
   background:linear-gradient(top, #f19242, #e36443);
}

.rss a:before,
.rss a:after {
   content:"";
   position:absolute;
   bottom:10px;
   left:10px;
}

/* create circle */
.rss a:before {
   width:12px;
   height:12px;
   background:#fff;
   /* css3 */
   -moz-border-radius:12px;
   -webkit-border-radius:12px;
   border-radius:12px;
}

/* create the two arcs */
.rss a:after {
   width:22px;
   height:22px;
   border-style:double;
   border-width:24px 24px 0 0;
   border-color:#fff;
   /* css3 */
   -moz-border-radius:0 50px 0 0;
   -webkit-border-radius:0 50px 0 0;
   border-radius:0 50px 0 0;
}

Acknowledgements

This post was inspired by an experiment on insicdesigns that producing a few social media icons using CSS.

This is a remix of another author’s idea of using CSS to make a classic model of our solar system. Here, I’ve relied on CSS pseudo-elements and generated content to render scale models of the solar system from simple markup of the raw information.

There are three demos for this experiment, which is based on Alex Giron’s original Our Solar System in CSS3.

• Basic demo: Reworking of original experiment
• Advanced demo: Scale model of the Solar System
• Advanced demo (keyboard support): Scale model of the Solar System

The basic demo uses only CSS and simple, semantic HTML to relatively faithfully reproduce Alex’s original result.

The advanced demo is a rough scale model of the Solar System. It uses the same HTML as the “basic demo” but makes extensive use of CSS pseudo-elements, generated content, and various bits of CSS3.

The advanced demo (keyboard support) is an attempt to provide keyboard support by introducing slight modifications to the HTML. I’ve commented out the animations in this version of the demo.

Why rework the original experiment?

I was curious to see if the same result could be achieved with simpler HTML, by relying on some newer CSS features.

I experimented a bit further with generated content, shadows, and the way the layout of the solar system is implemented. Doing this exposed me to some of the different ways modern browsers are implementing CSS3. I’ve described some of those differences and bugs below.

A scale model of the solar system

The main demo is a scale model of the solar system. It uses 3 different scales: one for the object diameters; one for the distance of the planets from the sun; and one for the orbital period of each planet.

Semantic HTML and Microdata

The HTML is a list where each list item contains a title and description. I’ve included some HTML Microdata to provide hooks for generated content.

<li id="earth" itemscope>
  <h2 itemprop="object">Earth
  <dl>
    <dt>Description</dt>
    <dd itemprop="description">Earth is an ocean planet. Our home world's abundance of water - and life - makes it unique in our solar system. Other planets, plus a few moons, have ice, atmospheres, seasons and even weather, but only on Earth does the whole complicated mix come together in a way that encourages life - and lots of it.</dd>
    <dt>Diameter</dt>
    <dd itemprop="diameter">12,755 <abbr title="kilometers">km</abbr></dd>
    <dt>Distance from sun</dt>
    <dd itemprop="distance">150×10<sup>6</sup> <abbr title="kilometers">km</abbr></dd>
    <dt>Orbital period</dt>
    <dd itemprop="orbit">365<abbr title="days">d</abbr></dd>
  </dl>
</li>

CSS pseudo-elements and generated content

Pseudo-elements are used to produce the planets, Saturn’s ring, the planet names, and to add the scale information.

Given that the scales only make sense when CSS is loaded it isn’t appropriate to have the scales described in the HTML. Both demos use the same HTML but only one of them is a rough scale model. Therefore, in the scale model demo I’ve used generated content to present the ratios and append extra information to the headings.

header h1:after {content:": A scale model";}
header h2:after {content:"Planet diameters 1px : 1,220 km / Distance from sun 1px : 7,125,000 km / Orbital period 1s : 4d";}

#earth dd[itemprop=diameter]:after {content:" (5px) / ";}
#earth dd[itemprop=distance]:after {content:" (22px) / ";}
#earth dd[itemprop=orbit]:after {content:" (91s)";}

Even more complex 3D presentations are likely to be possible using webkit-perspective and other 3D transforms.

Keyboard support

With a little modification it is possible to provide some form of keyboard support so that the additional information and highlighting can be viewed without using a mouse. Doing so requires adding block-level anchors (allowed in HTML5) and modifying some of the CSS selectors.

Modern browser CSS3 inconsistencies

This experiment only works adequately in modern browsers such as Safari 4+, Chrome 4+, Firefox 3.6+ and Opera 10.5+.

Even among the current crop of modern browsers, there are bugs and varying levels of support for different CSS properties and values. In particular, webkit’s box-shadow implementation has issues.

There are a few other unusual :hover bugs in Opera 10.5 (most obvious in the basic demo). It should also be noted that the :hover area remains square in all modern browsers even when you apply a border-radius to the element.

Border radius

There are also a few other peculiarities around percentage units for border radius. Of the modern browsers, a square object with a border-radius of 50% will only produce a circle in Safari 5, Chrome 5, and Firefox 3.6.

Safari 4 doesn’t appear to support percentage units for border radius at all (which is why the CSS in the demos explicitly sets a -webkit-border-radius value for each object). Safari 5 and Chrome 5 do support percentage units for this property. However, Chrome 5 has difficulty rendering a 1px wide border on a large circle. Most of the border simply isn’t rendered.

In Opera 10.5, if you set border-radius to 50% you don’t always get a circle, so I have had to redeclare the border-radius for each object in pixel units.

It appears that this is one aspect of Opera’s non-prefixed border-radius implementation that is incorrect and in need of fixing.

Box shadow

Safari 4’s inferior box-shadow implementation means that inset shadows are not rendered on the planet bodies. In addition, the second box-shadow applied to Saturn (used to separate the planet from its ring) is completely missing in Safari 4 as it does not support a spread radius value.

Safari 5 and Chrome 5 are better but still problematic. The second box-shadow is not perfectly round as the box-shadow seems to use the pseudo-element’s computed border-radius. Furthermore, Chrome 5 on Windows does not properly support inset box-shadow meaning that the shadow ignores the border-radius declaration and appears as a protruding square.

The use of box-shadow to separate Saturn from the ring isn’t strictly necessary. You can create the separated ring using a border but box-shadow cannot be applied in a way that casts it over a border. Another alternative would be to add a black border around the planet to give the illusion of space between itself and the ring, but all browsers display a few pixels of unwanted background colour all along the outer edge of the rounded border.

I wanted the ring to share the appearance of a shadow being cast on it. Opera 10.5 and Firefox 3.6 get it right. Both webkit browsers get it wrong.

Rupa Rani Bhuyan, assistant professor of Mangaldoi College, was held for “misbehaving” with the police and “obstructing” them from investigating cases against her

State health officials are planning extensive tests

Briskin, Alan, 1954-

Swindling, Linda Byars, 1965-

Drake, Matthew, author

Plenert, Gerhard Johannes, author

Galliers, Robert, 1947-

Görög, Mihály, 1951-

Godfrey, Paul C., author

Stegmann, Juan Pablo

Kipfer, Markus H, author

Wegerich, Christine, author

Hamann, Gerrit, author

Kreilkamp, Edgar

Mellon, Elizabeth

Caudle, Gerrie

Bernstein, Aimee

Greene, Jeffrey R., author

Klein, Bente