Yes, if you read how certain tags are actually intended/supposed to be used, you realize that semantic HTML is mostly nonsense. You can't extract a list of arti

Yes, if you read how certain tags are actually intended/supposed to be used, you realize that semantic HTML is mostly nonsense. You can't extract a list of articles from a page by looking for `<article>` tags, because there are all sorts of other 'acceptable' uses, none of which any web developer in the wild actually knows, let alone applies rigorously. It's just a bunch of rules that some ivory tower people made up, which have little to no correspondence to the much more useful questions of: - what kind of information do people wish to extract from an HTML document? - what kind of information does accessibility software need to extract from an HTML document? - what does the typical structure of a web page in the wild look like? - what kind of information cannot be inferred from natural context and requires annotations? W3 standards are, on the whole, pretty much garbage. The parts that aren't garbage are the parts that were standardized in the wild, from things people were already doing spontaneously. Also, the entire 'semantic html' movement was mostly a fad where people who never used a screenreader gushed about how much more accessible their HTML was because it used the morally pure, new, progressive HTML tags. It was masturbation. Everyone acted like people actually care about the HTML for the webpages they visit, but the reality is, they don't. Not even web developers. Unless they are explicitly paid to satisfy some government accessibility guidelines.