6 ms·

The Elements of HTML

94 points by bpierre 12y ago

mathias 12y ago
Please use http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ instead, as it’s based on the WHATWG HTML Living Standard rather than W3C’s versioned fork.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  Two things about that: 1. What are the differences? I've no idea what the significance of the source is. 2. The one you linked is hella unreadable. OP's table is, due to the color differences, extremely easy to skim, while the one you linked has only very similar black&white x and checkmark symbols, which require closer inspection to differentiate.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    The "main" development site for HTML5 is the WHATWG. That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. The WHATWG doesn't bother with versions, there will be no HTML6, for example. They just continually update the HTML5 spec. It's a living spec. The W3C kind of tracks the WHATWG progress and tags certain points with version numbers (that's where the "5.1" comes from). Although they do some development on their own, and sometimes both sides disagree and the specs diverge. At some point WHATWG removed an element that W3C retained or the other way around. I have no idea if they still diverge. I just discard the W3C when it comes to HTML5 and follow WHATWG. Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-)
    - currysausage 12y ago
      > Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-) Yeah, I don't quite know when such a table is very useful anyway. What I check is: (A) http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-index.html#elements-1 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... (B) http://caniuse.com/ http://caniuse.com/
      - couchand 12y ago
        I love http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com but I wish they had more detail. For instance, on the XHR page, I'd like to know which browsers support addEventHandler syntax and which ones require the use of onreadystatechange.
    - camo 12y ago
      > That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. With the notable exception of Microsoft.
- meowface 12y ago
  Is anyone out there actually using XHTML 2.0 currently?
- Siecje 12y ago
  I actually found it interesting to see what was in HTML5.1 and not in HTML5, even though I agree the 5.1 version number is quite silly.
  - SteveFaulkner 12y ago
    Note, the reason why there some features in 5.1 that are not in 5.0 is that there are some features not implemented yet, 5.0 only includes implemented features.
- goblin89 12y ago
  The page you linked to doesn't look very trustworthy because it displays third-party ads. (Just an observation.)
huskyr 12y ago
Another index that's a lot more usable than this one IMHO is: http://developers.whatwg.org/section-index.html#index http://developers.whatwg.org/section-index.html#index
- dtech 12y ago
  It serves a different purpose. Your link does not show how HTML evolved/what tags are new, the OP link doesn't show what each element actually is.
  - meowface 12y ago
    Here's one also by WHATWG, with all the relevant changes: http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/
KevinMcAlear 12y ago
No blink tag documentation. I can't use this thing.
- felipesabino 12y ago
  I believe it is because it is a non-standard tag...
marcosdumay 12y ago
Are frames really deprecated in HTML 5.1? Why does the documentation not tell that?
- SimeVidas 12y ago
  It's on the list of obsolete, non-conforming features http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-feat...
chrisBob 12y ago
What is the point of things like hgroup and rbc that are listed as not available in any of the versions on the chart?
- Siecje 12y ago
  hgroup was in the unfinished HTML5 spec but was removed.
- alwillis 12y ago
  hgroup was part of the “original” HTML5 spec, but it won’t be part of HTML5 going forward as the living spec grows up a bit. I think it’s still useful: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-hgroup-element http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...
franze 12y ago
<center> is not HTML5? why? i love <center> & they standardised all other worst practices of the browser vendors, but this one they missed?
- leephillips 12y ago
 Probably because it's presentational, rather than "semantic". You're supposed to use CSS to do this.
 - dictum 12y ago
 If only they could retrofit <center> as a semantic tag, like they did with .
 - stan_rogers 12y ago
 <center>, though, has no semantic implication. can be taken to mean "here be subsidiary information not worthy of large print (or in which we wish to hide critical information we do not with the reader to pay any attention to)". Centred text (or figures) is, and always has been, a stylistic decision, and there are already containers that are semantically meaningful to which that stylistic decision may be applied.
 - bshimmin 12y ago
 The repurposed definitions of B and I, when everyone remembers them as meaning "bold" and "italic" (and browsers still render them thus), seem really weak to me. SMALL makes sense really only because we have a concept of "small print". I will concede I can't conjure up a similar argument for CENTER, though alongside HEADER (the thing at the top of the page or a section thereof) and FOOTER (the thing at the bottom), it doesn't seem so ridiculous. Let's not get started on the S/STRIKE/DEL mess.
 stan_rogers 12y ago
 And you would mark le seule mot juste how? It's not emphasized, introducing a new term, or a citation, but it is traditionally typeset as italic (so simply marking it with a is losing information). Much the same can be said for non-emphasized bold text. would be wrong. B and I still mean bold and italic respectively, but they are used only to cover the cases not specifically covered by other tags. Markup should be about langue, not parôle.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
felipesabino 12y ago
Is it me or the <marquee> is missing?
- felipesabino 12y ago
 Oh, may be because is a on-standard...
goblin89 12y ago
The browser-tag relationship often happens to be more nuanced than just “supports” or “not supports”. I'd recommend skimming an MDN article in case of doubt. They also include browser compatibility tables for quick reference and link to W3C and WHATWG specs.

94 points by bpierre 12y ago

Please use http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ instead, as it’s based on the WHATWG HTML Living Standard rather than W3C’s versioned fork.

Mithaldu 12y ago
Two things about that: 1. What are the differences? I've no idea what the significance of the source is. 2. The one you linked is hella unreadable. OP's table is, due to the color differences, extremely easy to skim, while the one you linked has only very similar black&white x and checkmark symbols, which require closer inspection to differentiate.
- Tomte 12y ago
  The "main" development site for HTML5 is the WHATWG. That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. The WHATWG doesn't bother with versions, there will be no HTML6, for example. They just continually update the HTML5 spec. It's a living spec. The W3C kind of tracks the WHATWG progress and tags certain points with version numbers (that's where the "5.1" comes from). Although they do some development on their own, and sometimes both sides disagree and the specs diverge. At some point WHATWG removed an element that W3C retained or the other way around. I have no idea if they still diverge. I just discard the W3C when it comes to HTML5 and follow WHATWG. Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-)
  - currysausage 12y ago
    > Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network documents. :-) Yeah, I don't quite know when such a table is very useful anyway. What I check is: (A) http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-index.html#elements-1 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... (B) http://caniuse.com/ http://caniuse.com/
    - couchand 12y ago
      I love http://caniuse.com http://caniuse.com but I wish they had more detail. For instance, on the XHR page, I'd like to know which browsers support addEventHandler syntax and which ones require the use of onreadystatechange.
  - camo 12y ago
    > That's where all the browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C. With the notable exception of Microsoft.
meowface 12y ago
Is anyone out there actually using XHTML 2.0 currently?
Siecje 12y ago
I actually found it interesting to see what was in HTML5.1 and not in HTML5, even though I agree the 5.1 version number is quite silly.
- SteveFaulkner 12y ago
  Note, the reason why there some features in 5.1 that are not in 5.0 is that there are some features not implemented yet, 5.0 only includes implemented features.
goblin89 12y ago
The page you linked to doesn't look very trustworthy because it displays third-party ads. (Just an observation.)

huskyr 12y ago

Another index that's a lot more usable than this one IMHO is: http://developers.whatwg.org/section-index.html#index http://developers.whatwg.org/section-index.html#index

dtech 12y ago
It serves a different purpose. Your link does not show how HTML evolved/what tags are new, the OP link doesn't show what each element actually is.
- meowface 12y ago
  Here's one also by WHATWG, with all the relevant changes: http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/ http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/

KevinMcAlear 12y ago

No blink tag documentation. I can't use this thing.

felipesabino 12y ago
I believe it is because it is a non-standard tag...

marcosdumay 12y ago

Are frames really deprecated in HTML 5.1? Why does the documentation not tell that?

SimeVidas 12y ago
It's on the list of obsolete, non-conforming features http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-feat...

chrisBob 12y ago

What is the point of things like hgroup and rbc that are listed as not available in any of the versions on the chart?

Siecje 12y ago
hgroup was in the unfinished HTML5 spec but was removed.
alwillis 12y ago
hgroup was part of the “original” HTML5 spec, but it won’t be part of HTML5 going forward as the living spec grows up a bit. I think it’s still useful: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/sections.html#the-hgroup-element http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/...

franze 12y ago

<center> is not HTML5? why? i love <center> & they standardised all other worst practices of the browser vendors, but this one they missed?

leephillips 12y ago
Probably because it's presentational, rather than "semantic". You're supposed to use CSS to do this.
- dictum 12y ago
 If only they could retrofit <center> as a semantic tag, like they did with .
 - stan_rogers 12y ago
 <center>, though, has no semantic implication. can be taken to mean "here be subsidiary information not worthy of large print (or in which we wish to hide critical information we do not with the reader to pay any attention to)". Centred text (or figures) is, and always has been, a stylistic decision, and there are already containers that are semantically meaningful to which that stylistic decision may be applied.
 - bshimmin 12y ago
 The repurposed definitions of B and I, when everyone remembers them as meaning "bold" and "italic" (and browsers still render them thus), seem really weak to me. SMALL makes sense really only because we have a concept of "small print". I will concede I can't conjure up a similar argument for CENTER, though alongside HEADER (the thing at the top of the page or a section thereof) and FOOTER (the thing at the bottom), it doesn't seem so ridiculous. Let's not get started on the S/STRIKE/DEL mess.
 - stan_rogers 12y ago
 And you would mark le seule mot juste how? It's not emphasized, introducing a new term, or a citation, but it is traditionally typeset as italic (so simply marking it with a is losing information). Much the same can be said for non-emphasized bold text. would be wrong. B and I still mean bold and italic respectively, but they are used only to cover the cases not specifically covered by other tags. Markup should be about langue, not parôle.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

felipesabino 12y ago

Is it me or the <marquee> is missing?

felipesabino 12y ago
Oh, may be because is a on-standard...

goblin89 12y ago

The browser-tag relationship often happens to be more nuanced than just “supports” or “not supports”. I'd recommend skimming an MDN article in case of doubt. They also include browser compatibility tables for quick reference and link to W3C and WHATWG specs.