Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I just wanted to know why html 5 remove following elements please give me answer Its also asked to me in Interview....
The following HTML 4.01 elements are removed from HTML5:
<acronym>
<applet>
<basefont>
<big>
<center>
<dir>
<font>
<frame>
<frameset>
<noframes>
<strike>
<tt>
The following elements are not in HTML 5 because their effect is purely presentational and their function is better handled by CSS:
basefont
big
center
font
strike
tt
The following elements are not in HTML5 because using them damages usability and accessibility:
frame
frameset
noframes
The following elements are not included because they have not been used often, created confusion, or their function can be handled by other elements:
acronym is not included because it has created a lot of confusion. Web developers are to use abbr for abbreviations.
applet has been obsoleted in favor of object.
isindex usage can be replaced by usage of form controls.
dir has been obsoleted in favor of ul.
See Details W3C
You can find the answers (though a bit short) in the Differences from HTML4 TR. There, you can also click a particular element of choice to see a more detailed explanation and/or replacement.
Anup not only those tags there are lot of other things which are deprecated in html5. Reason is their function is better handled by CSS.
Please look at this list of deprecated tags in html5 http://www.tutorialspoint.com/html5/html5_deprecated_tags.htm
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Why do I need those tags ? :
Footer
Main
Article
Section
Form
Even if I don’t use those tags, I can get the same result, so what's the point of using these tags at all?
From MDN:
The HTML5 specification introduced several semantic sectioning elements to help organize the structure of documents. Semantic sectioning elements are specifically designed to communicate structural meaning to browsers and other technologies interpreting the document on behalf of users, such as screen readers and voice assistants.
Semantic sectioning elements clarify the larger-scale structures within a document. They are intended to enhance the limited semantics of earlier versions of HTML, which included only the tag as a generic mechanism for grouping related content
To mention also:
Important: There are no implementations of the proposed outline algorithm in web browsers nor assistive technology; it was never part of a final W3C specification. Therefore the outline algorithm should not be used to convey document structure to users. Authors are advised to use heading rank (h1-h6) to convey document structure.
and this is why you can't find any resources, because it is not standardized, and so it hasn't a common significance
Originally, HTML was all about formatting. That's why you have tags like b and i. Those tags tell you how the page is supposed to look, but they tell you nothing about what the data actually means. Over time, there's been a movement towards separating meaning and the appearance (especially with the advent of HTML5). That's why those tags exist.
With regards to your list, note that the form tag is different than the other ones you list - that particular one means that all of the input tags inside the form are intended to be sent to a server.
Yes, you can definitely do all such things without all these tags but it helps the browser to understand your code better and it will help you when you make big/complex website to understand edit your code easily.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I generally think generally think of div as a generic structural block, and my mental designation for a generic presentational block is different. In practice I use <div class='flair'></div> with a media query to hide most 'flair' on small screens. My use of the flair class seems more suited to its own tag (as opposed to a class), but there's nothing in the HTML element reference that fits this description, and the HTML spec in general seems to be moving away from presentational tags. I'm wondering if other people have considered a tag like this, or if the fact that I'm asking this question at all implies that I think of HTML elements differently than most.
For clarity, I think of a 'generic presentational block' as one that meets most of this criteria:
is not required to understand the content of the page
contains no text, anchors, buttons
is not flow content
So, I have some questions:
Do other people use a specific class to denote generic presentational blocks?
Do you feel like an existence of such a tag would improve the HTML that most developers write? (context: I generally consider div soup to be a negative)
How would you feel about browsers having a builtin feature that disables this tag. This feature would be a superset of tools like adblock and noscript
Regardless of whether the question is relevant or not - I understand what you mean about "div soup," but since your flairs are semantically meaningless I think it's technically fine.
I work with a developer who uses the <i> tag with a role="presentation" attribute added. Honestly, I haven't really looked into the use of <i> but using role="presentation" for accessibility purposes may be something to look into if you haven't already? And can be used to hide presentational flairs on mobile.
https://w3c.github.io/aria-in-html/#presentation
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
This is a question to mostly satisfy my curiosity: with the growth and acceptance of larger javascript frameworks the last, say, 5 years, it has become increasingly common to have attributes on elements add custom behavior to known html elements. For this reason html5 introduces data-* attributes, which just about every tool, including the browser parsing the dom actively ignores while rendering but are key for Js framework to enrich html as full-fledged application platform.
With Angular directives (for example), app builders enrich html as a whole by adding the ability to even create custom elements. The thing is however, this is where editing tools, like Visual Studio, break, since they like to actively check if the html elements you add exist.
Now, my question is not about visual studio (I know how to disable html validation), but why did the creators of the html5 standard never considered to include data-* elements as well? Or maybe they did, and the idea was discarded somehow. Does anyone know?
The data- prefix is actually part of the HTML5 draft
these attributes are for semantic HTML; as an example, attaching a database ID to an HTML element so that HTML parsers can use this data. In the case of Angular, the custom attributes do not carry data; they extend HTML.
Mozilla has some guidelines on the topic of the data prefix: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/Using_data_attributes
Edit The intent of HTML elements is to carry content to be displayed by the browser, attributes to attach meta-data to these elements and <head> to attach meta-data to the whole document. There are no data- elements in HTML so it's consistent with that design.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
What is the HTML5 alternative for rel="" in the following code:
<span class="gte" rel="gte">
Without the rel="" attribute, the page is not functional, nor will it validate as HTML5 compliant.
The rel attribute is perfectly valid in HTML5, so it doesn't need an alternative, however it needs to be on a a, link or area element, because it defines the *rel*ationship between the current document and the linked document. Having it on an element which is not a type of link doesn't make any sense.
In order for your markup to validate you need to change the span to a or link and the value you use with the rel attribute needs to be allowed by the link types listed in the spec or have been approved by the microformats development process. I don't see gte listed in either place, maybe you could explain what you expect it to mean?
You say 'the page is not functional' but do not describe what functionality you're expecting? Normally a rel attribute does nothing, it's just semantic information. If you're just trying to add additional information to this element for use in by a script or other tool related to your own site then you should instead use data-* attributes.
If this information isn't helpful to you, perhaps you can explain more clearly what your problem is?
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a website generator that can search for a given URL and output the urls where the images are missing their ALT tags?
Yes - use the w3c markup validator. It will output an error for <img> tags that do not have the required alt attribute.
Note that this will only happen for doctypes which require the alt attribute. I believe that, at minimum, all XHTML doctypes require it, so if your page does not already have that doctype, you might consider adding it temporarily to use the validator.
Why don't you use W3C Validator?
I found 2 sites
http://www.web-backlinks.com/webpageimgaltchecker.asp - seems to only do alt's
http://www.clarity-media.co.uk/alttagchecker.php - seems to only do alt tags.
As people mentioned you can use w3c validator but then you got to filter through all the other invalid ones and if your really only looking for imgs this might same you a bit of time.