CUTCODEDOWN
Minimalist Semantic Markup

Welcome Guest
Please Login or Register

If you have registered but not recieved your activation e-mail in a reasonable amount of time, or have issues with using the registration form, please use our Contact Form for assistance. Include both your username and the e-mail you tried to register with.

Author Topic: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again  (Read 134 times)

Gary-SC

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +1/-0
HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« on: 14 Apr 2022, 09:33:02 am »
As of 2022, is it now wrong for me to say that HTML5 tags such as <section>, <nav>, <header>, <aside>, <article>, and <header> is redundant, unnecessary, and I should default to sticking with <h1>, <h2>, <h3>, etc. document structure? Has the situation changed now that I should actually use them instead of sticking to the simple method I'm accustomed to?

I am working with another coder under a new client. I didn't expect to work with another coder but whatever. The client had me set up a foundation, and the other dude would do the rest.

I did the usual thing; HTML5 without those annoying redundant tags. The client didn't specifically ask for it, so I did my thing. Then, the other guy fussed at me and told me to use those tags. I explained my reasoning behind it and said, sure, I would add that for you, even though I disagreed with him. Whatever. Then, he fussed at me again and lectured me on how I was wrong in thinking that I didn't need to use those tags to define what each component is "semantically." He further told me that accessibility was irrelevant, and I was a fool in neglecting to use those HTML5 tags properly and annoying other coders. And, as if it weren't enough insult, he went on telling me he was telling me these things because it's how most coders did, and I should learn HTML5 properly and embrace it to be a team player.

I'm f***in' furious now. I didn't even ask this a$$h0le for advice, yet he tells me I'm wrong on these things. But does he have a point? I don't think so, but I want to hear what you guys have to say about this. I think he is wrong, but I still want to leave my learning door open. Just trying to be humble.

"Accessibility doesn't matter. Do how other coders do" offends me immensely. It's a middle finger, especially to those of us who need websites to be accessibility friendly. When did the industry decide that sticking to the simplest form of doing this stuff is wrong? Shouldn't other coders be able to handle HTML without those redundant tags? <h1> ~ <h6> with the last <hr> as a way to tell it's a footer works fine. I don't want to do redundant work when what's in <aside> is no longer a sidebar. Why <section> when <h2>, etc. tags do just fine? Where in the HTML5 spec say that those tags are mandatory?

« Last Edit: 14 Apr 2022, 09:39:31 am by Gary-SC »

coothead

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
  • Karma: +69/-0
  • I smile benignly
    • coothead's stuff ~ an eclectic collection
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #1 on: 14 Apr 2022, 11:19:34 am »
Hi there Gary-SC,

personally, I do not use, or see any genuine reason to use <header>, <nav>, <main>,
<section>, <aside>, or <article>
but you must bear in mind that I am just a very old
amateur coder.

Your real problem is,  obviously , the environment in which you have chosen to work.

If you are forced to work with staff who believe that "accessibility is irrelevant", then  I
would suggest that you get your boss to organise a team briefing to point out the error
of  their ways. 
Once that is sorted then a team discussion on the pros and cons of using those HTML5
elements would also be of benefit.
Your boss should then be in a position to specify how the team is to work whilst in his
employ.

If the outcome is unacceptable to you then what you choose to  do job wise is up to you.

coothead
~ the original bald headed old fart ~

Gary-SC

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #2 on: 14 Apr 2022, 06:25:14 pm »
Hi @coothead,

It's a one-off contract work (side job) that will end later this month. I didn't even know that the client hired another guy to form a two-coder "team" until after we started. Fortunately, he does give me more trust in the matter, but he doesn't subscribe to the same line of thinking and thinks those tags are recommended. I honestly don't think it's worth having another round of argument match with these people as it's not a long-term thing.

I am just so fed up with all these people I come across who don't think enough to make an informed decision. The answer to why I don't use those tags even though I know what those are is, "You are wrong and doing a disservice to fellow coders by believing in your approach," without telling me why so. Or, utter nonsense like "Accessibility doesn't matter to the process." I code because I like its craftsmanship of it. But I f***in hate how ignorance is the norm.

coothead

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 304
  • Karma: +69/-0
  • I smile benignly
    • coothead's stuff ~ an eclectic collection
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #3 on: 14 Apr 2022, 07:24:52 pm »
Quote from: Gary-SC
But I fucking hate how ignorance is the norm.

This quote...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe.”


... reportedly by Albert Einstein, suggests that we are all
going to be fucked,  sooner or later,  by it's consequences.  :o  ::)

coothead
~ the original bald headed old fart ~

John_Betong

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Karma: +23/-1
    • The Fastest Joke Site On The Web
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #4 on: 14 Apr 2022, 10:22:43 pm »
As of 2022, is it now wrong for me to say that HTML5 tags such as <section>, <nav>, <header>, <aside>, <article>, and <header> is redundant, unnecessary, and I should default to sticking with <h1>, <h2>, <h3>, etc. document structure? Has the situation changed now that I should actually use them instead of sticking to the simple method I'm accustomed to?

When these additional tags were first introduced I thought they were overkill but have since found that HTML and CSS are both greatly simplified.

Quickly scanning reams of HTML text highlights sections,  excuse the pun, rather than having to guess where a particular Div class starts and finishes. CSS is also simplified and section tags etc can also have additional classes or IDs to  fit the oddballs cases that do not conform to the section specified in the style sheet.

Give them a whirl and guaranteed they will be a boon to your scripting.
« Last Edit: 14 Apr 2022, 10:59:11 pm by John_Betong »
Retired in the City of Angels where the weather suits my clothes

Gary-SC

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #5 on: 15 Apr 2022, 01:05:52 am »
<section> requires a heading element. It implies that it's a "section" of a document. So, what's the point of using the <section> tag on top of that other than to say I look cool and hip? "Look ma, HTML5! HTML5!"

I would yield and use these tags, and I have for the sake of not wasting my time dancing with mouth-breathers who otherwise pay me well. But, it still makes me cringe every time. I prefer to keep things simple and DRY.
« Last Edit: 15 Apr 2022, 01:07:27 am by Gary-SC »

John_Betong

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Karma: +23/-1
    • The Fastest Joke Site On The Web
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #6 on: 15 Apr 2022, 03:03:08 am »
<section> requires a heading element. It implies that it's a "section" of a document. So, what's the point of using the <section> tag on top of that other than to say I look cool and hip? "Look ma, HTML5! HTML5!"

I would yield and use these tags, and I have for the sake of not wasting my time dancing with mouth-breathers who otherwise pay me well. But, it still makes me cringe every time. I prefer to keep things simple and DRY.

The “requires a heading element” allows me at least to add a heading element AND to format the additional element in CSS:

Code: [Select]
section {
Width:88%;
margin: 0 auto 2rem;
outline: solid 1px #ddd;
border-radius: 0.88rem;
}
section h2 {
text-align: left;
background-color: #ccc;
font-weight: 700;
border-bottom: solid 1px #345;
}

« Last Edit: 15 Apr 2022, 03:05:02 am by John_Betong »
Retired in the City of Angels where the weather suits my clothes

Jason Knight

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 828
  • Karma: +153/-1
    • CutCodeDown -- Minimalist Semantic Markup
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #7 on: 15 Apr 2022, 07:40:36 am »
<section> requires a heading element. It implies that it's a "section" of a document. So, what's the point of using the <section> tag on top of that other than to say I look cool and hip? "Look ma, HTML5! HTML5!"
This is AGAIN another case where recent changes to HTML 5 reek of being created by people unqualified to work on the HTML specification. Numbered headings imply the START of sections and subsections of the page, thus SECTION was always redundant. The only justificiation for its existence at the start was as an ALTERNATIVE to using numbered headings.

But about two years ago they added the "use a numbered heading" recommendation completely defeating the entire point of the huffing tag!

The WhatWG has been pulling this type of stupid halfwit bullshit with HTML for a decade. Every time further illustrating their own ignorance and incompetence and this has gone on since before it was even accepted by the W3C. See the mind-numbingly idioitic -- and thankfully defunct -- HGROUP tag that proved they didn't evne know what numbered headings were for in the first damned place!

I mean these assclowns can't even follow their own rules, like for META. Their recognizing in the validation the X-UA-Compatible only allowing the value "edge" is 100% BULLSHIT creeated by quacks, morons, and fools... that violates THEIR OWN RULES.

See, by W3C rules nothing can be in recommendation -- and therefor be in the validation -- until at least TWO UA vendors recognize or implement it. X-UA-Compatible is a Microsoft IE 9 through 11 only property. HURR-DURRZ.

It is also a META. The entire point of META tags is to let all vendors declare whatever the hell they want for value passing OUTSIDE the specification. The values and names of META should be -- and previously were --- NONE of the damned specifications business.

THAT'S HOW FREAKING STUPID HTML 5 IS GETTING.

And it's why validation whilst fine for checking missing opening and closing tags is riddled with garbage bullshit you basically have to suppress at this point. Like the idiotic "section needs a heading", like the idiotic "you can't use projection or TV media targets anymore", like the absolute dipshit moronic "You can't say IE=9 on your X-UA-Compatible anymore".

These know-nothing jackasses have through the 3i of web development made HTML validation as meaningless, arbitrary, and useless as CSS validation was twenty years ago. Thus why I have zero confidence in the W3C -- much less the WhatWG -- moving forward providing any of us anything of value.

Of course that lacking a numbered heading was completely valid inside section just five years ago is part of why HTML 5's lack of version control is even more dumbass. Since yesterday's valid HTML 5 can be invalid today. Today's HTML 5 could be invalid tomorrow, with ZERO means in the document to identify that.

Making <!DOCTYPE html> without resurrecting HTML's version="" is one of the most dumbass changes in HTML of the past 30 years, and why the WhatWG can take their asinine "living document" dipshittery and shove it you know where!

"What if you don't know? What if you're new?" -- George Carlin
« Last Edit: 15 Apr 2022, 07:44:28 am by Jason Knight »
I'll fix every flaw, I'll break every law, I'll tear up the rulebook if that's what it takes. You will see, I will crush this cold machine.

Jason Knight

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 828
  • Karma: +153/-1
    • CutCodeDown -- Minimalist Semantic Markup
Re: HTML5 tags controversy at work...again
« Reply #8 on: 15 Apr 2022, 07:46:28 am »
Oh, and I railed against their use as they ARE from a semantic standpoint idiotic redundancies. The requirement of headers in SECTION only exacerbating that. But I still use them now... why?

Because they reduce the number of DIV and classes I end up pissing into the markup. I have come to think of them as non-semantic structural hooks. More so since all the fancy CSS 2.1 selectors are now real-world deployable in the post IE world.
I'll fix every flaw, I'll break every law, I'll tear up the rulebook if that's what it takes. You will see, I will crush this cold machine.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk

Advertisement