hm.. that's interesting. Haven't paid much attention to HTML5 the last few months.
@martinrinehart said:
But we wander. Back to my original question..
Ah, yea. The topic! π Sorry, I often stray away and webdev is one of my major interests so I stray even quicker and further when that topic is even remotely related. π³
@martinrinehart said:
As browsers are more predictable in standards mode than quirks mode, Ruby-generated HTML should include a doctype and should be valid for its doctype.
Agree. Since webdialogs must run under the webkit engine and IE the best chance for platform compatibility is following the W3C standards.
When I make webdialogs I do the same as I do when I develop websites. I code to the standards, then to account for IE notoriously bad handling of the standards I add some conditional comments that adds CSS and JS fixes. Most of the time visual quirks in IE is by triggering hasLayout
For better legibility and re-usability, separate CSS and JS their own respective files.
Using HTML validators to detect correct markup is very important. Once a document is invalid there's no way to predict how the different rendering engines will recover and you can not expect cross platform compatibility.
I'm starting to realise that there hasn't been posted any recommendations of best practices when it comes to webdialogs. Coming from a webdesign background I haven't given it much thought.