3 ms·
If you prove that those who thought HTML should be exclusively for semantics and not visual appearance "lost" by linking to a history of HTML that was last upda
by jolux 11y ago
If you prove that those who thought HTML should be exclusively for semantics and not visual appearance "lost" by linking to a history of HTML that was last updated in 1998 it makes it seem as if you missed HTML5 when great pains have been taken to remove visual styling information from HTML in place of semantic markers.
In fact most of the web developers I speak with regularly agree. The consensus in recent years is that HTML is supposed to be exclusively semantic and markup should be styled with CSS.
http://www.csszengarden.com/ http://www.csszengarden.com/ is this concept taken to an extreme. Same HTML, same semantics, different styling.
- Animats 11y agoThe claim was made for HTML5 that it would do that. Some HTML5 page source does look like that, but not most of it.
- jolux 11y agoNo, there is a specification for HTML5, and it does exactly what I said it does. Granted, most "HTML5" is a mix of HTML 4 and HTML5 (sometimes even a little XHTML) but these are not strict validated sites. Here, try running a few websites through https://validator.w3.org/ https://validator.w3.org/ and see what pops up. You'd be surprised. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com https://news.ycombinator.com is extremely bad HTML5, and if you look at the report on it, https://html5.validator.nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com&showimagereport=yes&showsource=yes https://html5.validator.nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinat... you can see a bunch of "Use CSS Instead" suggestions. This is the separation of style from semantics that HTML5 was made to reinforce.