Anne van Kesteren


Some time ago I wrote an article for Dev.Opera: Improve your forms using HTML5! Recently this article got dugg. It seems that we, the WHATWG, should work a bit on our message as Ian mentioned on IRC. It seems that people either didn’t really get it (saying it should be done in CSS instead) or complained about the syntax. Complaining about the syntax seems rather silly to me. If you’re dealing with HTML you have to accept such input anyway, whether it pleases you or not. It’s like telling someone how they should write their CSS (putting a newline after each property declaration), because doing otherwise makes it harder to read for you or something. You might think it’s slightly more complicated than the equivalent XML syntax, but then you probably never looked into the internal subset. Pretty cool I got dugg though, although it did ring a bell.


  1. "I can make a blog post making up HTML attributes I think we should have, but that doesn't mean everyone's going to come around and adopt them. What a total noob."

    Yeah, Anne! You noob!

    Posted by paul haine at

  2. Wow. A lot of people is to low on knowledge to read slightly technical articles. I honestly had no idea that there was so much misinterpretation about what you guys do. I almost feel sad reading the comments.

    What almost is more concerning is the fact that the stupid comments are dug, while those who make sense and understand the surroundings of the matter are buried. Digg is fading away towards stupidity.

    Posted by Henrik Lied at

  3. Most of the commenters seem to have done nothing except for a quick glance at the code examples. Then, after thinking about it for about a second, concluded it was merely a sort of hook for CSS. I don't think I know how to respond to that. I think I pity them.

    Posted by Frenzie at

  4. I don't think I know how to respond to that. I think I pity them.

    I think I agree.

    Posted by Henrik Lied at

  5. And, just how does The WHAT WG propose marketing its products?

    Posted by Sean Fraser at

  6. Omitting quotes may be legal, but it trips over a nerve. It's like the flamewars that erupt over the correct place for an opening { in C or Java. Some people like it on the same line as the function declaration, some people like it on its own. You don't see code that does it differently from your code very often. When you do, it looks tremendously alien.

    It's the same way with quotes. You may like them omitted, but a lot of people have trained themselves to always put them in. The fact that they are not there has blinded them to the tightness and elegance of your mark-up.

    Posted by Leons Petrazickis at

  7. I'm sorry to be pedantic, but the term is "dugg," not "digged." Otherwise, it's pretty cool and I feel bad about the wrongful criticism you're getting.

    Posted by Asher Gabara at

  8. Interesting, huh? Back in 2003 it was considered a major breakthrough to convince the web development world (including the amateurs) that xhtml and css were worthwhile investments of one's time... and now they truly have forgotten about anything good the past technologies had in the first place. It's pretty sad to see that they're so sheepish and need to be led through marketing..

    Posted by Rahul at

  9. I do agree though that adding quotes around your attributes is just good style. It has nothing to do with XHTML. Just imagine what would happen if you ask an intern to update the text of the submit button from React! to React now!

    Unless your point is to show how tight you can write HTML5, just write your examples in the way your target audience expects them. The more you reach out to your audience, the more they will get the message.

    Posted by Sjoerd Visscher at

  10. What Sjoerd Visscher said. But I do too pity those commenters. I actually had to stop reading by comment number 10, because it was just getting too pathetic.

    Posted by Asbjørn Ulsberg at

  11. Hilarious. Website "designers" are the Golgafrinchan Telephone Sanitisers of the geek world.

    Posted by mattur at

  12. It's pretty funny that your detractors think you're unaware of the specs that you are helping to write. "Stick with CSS"... to... validate your forms? Interesting suggestion. :)

    That's a pretty cool example (though I don't care for the syntax), and I like how Opera has implemented the validation and the special UI for the field types (and the cute lil icons). Nice work.

    Posted by Doug Schepers at

  13. Well, there were some very strange responses as to what was CSS designed for amongst some other odd misconceptions, it certainly made me laugh. :)

    Posted by Robert Wellock at

  14. Great article.

    HTML 5 seems to be better than I expected!

    Posted by James John Malcolm at

  15. It was claimed that whole developers were waiting for improved HTML because strongly disliking XML and XHTML.

    Now, you can see the general receivement of the HTML 5 thing even for the supposed crucial part: that of web applications.

    It is true that some replies on Digg are misleading the spec, but you would be very, very far from claiming success for the HTML 5 spec once a "better message".

    Posted by Juan R. at