When looking at the source code of the HTML standard there were some tags that I didn't recognise..
For example in this snippet:
<pre><code class='idl'>[<c- g>Exposed</c->=<c- n>Window</c->]
<c- b>interface</c-> <dfn id='htmlparagraphelement' data-dfn-type='interface'><c- g>HTMLParagraphElement</c-></dfn> : <a id='the-p-element:htmlelement' href='dom.html#htmlelement'><c- n>HTMLElement</c-></a> {
[<a id='the-p-element:htmlconstructor' href='dom.html#htmlconstructor'><c- g>HTMLConstructor</c-></a>] <c- g>constructor</c->();
// <a href='obsolete.html#HTMLParagraphElement-partial'>also has obsolete members</a>
};</code></pre>
From https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/grouping-content.html
I thought these may be custom elements, but it doesn't look like they are defined via the custom element registry.. This is the result of interrogating the customElements object.
>>> customElements.get('c')
undefined
>>> customElements.get('c-')
undefined
Is this allowed? (I'd guess so since it's from the HTML standard, but it's still surprising to me). How would the browser know how these elements are supposed to be displayed? For example display: block vs. display: inline.
These are custom-elements (and valid HTML), generated by bikeshed's highlighter.
There is no need to define these as customElements because they don't bring any particular behavior, all they do is to ... save bandwidth.
Here is the commit excerpt:
🚨 TERRIBLE-HACK-ALERT 🚨 Switch to using <c- kt> instead of <span clas…
…s='kt'> to cut the weight of highlighting in half. Still valid HTML!
So apparently by switching from <span class="kt"> to <c- kt> (and span.kt { to c-[kt]{) they saved half of the weight induced by their highlighting.
Though as they say, it's a "terrible-hack", which still can make sense when building a tool that generates the majority of Web Standards pages, which can get very lengthy.
Regarding the default display of such custom-element, I'll quote Alohci's comment which did put it nicely:
All elements take the initial, or inherited for inherited properties, value of each CSS property until specified otherwise. So they would be display:inline
And regarding your expectation to see only best practices in the specs sources, it's better not assume so. Read the content of these pages, don't look at how they're built.
Most HTML editors don't look at the tools that will generate the pages, they write the specs in a pseudo-HTML language full of templates.
Or as it's put in the source:
<!-- Note: This file is NOT HTML, it's a proprietary language that is then post-processed into HTML. -->
I managed to add HTML (text only) to a Word-document following this post Add HTML String to OpenXML, using an already existing Word-file.
Unfortunately, I can't find any solution to use style from this Word-template for my newly added text. It is always "Times New Roman" size 12px although the standard style of the used template is "Arial" size 9px.
So fare I tried:
Using the ParagraphProperties as I would do for not HTML texts.
Paragraph para = body.AppendChild(new Paragraph());
Run run = para.AppendChild(new Run());
run.AppendChild(altChunk);
para.ParagraphProperties = new ParagraphProperties(new ParagraphStyleId() { Val = "berschrift2" });
Turnig MatchSource off
AltChunkProperties altChunkProperties = new AltChunkProperties();
altChunkProperties.MatchSource = new MatchSource() { Val = new OnOffValue(false) };
altChunk.AppendChild<AltChunkProperties>(altChunkProperties);
Any suggestions?
EDIT:
I found a workaround, which isn´t really a solution for my question, but works for me. I'm no longer trying to use the style from word, but adding the styles to my html before using altchunk.
Some explanation: if you look at the definition of altChunk in ISO 29500-1 17.17.2.1 and specifically in the A.1 section, the schema shows that altChunk is a EG_BlockLevelElts element and this is a peer with paragraphs (i.e. ). It is technically not correct to add as a child to run elements or even paragraph. It should be added at the body level. The fact that Word doesn't complain when adding as a run or paragraph child is unintentional and shouldn't be relied on.
As a result, what Word is doing is using the default style property for fonts to format this new content. You can try this by changing the document defaults in the styles.xml part. With match source property set to false, there isn't a way to specify the font besides document defaults.
Having said that, I think that Thomas' alternative is a better way to go.
The real solution for your question is to transform HTML into Open XML markup "yourself" rather than relying on the alternative format import parts in conjunction with w:altChunk elements. This creates a dependency on how Microsoft Word handles the import, often with little control on your side.
How do you transform HTML (or XML in general) to Open XML markup? The best way is to write so-called recursive pure functional transformations, which translate HTML elements and attributes to Open XML elements and attributes. If you have really simple HTML documents, that is not a big task. However, doing this for "arbitrary" HTML and CSS is quite a feat.
The good news is that the Open-XML-PowerTools, an Open Source library, contain functionality to transform HTML to Open XML and vice versa. Thus, I'd recommend you have a look at that library.
What worked for me and for my situation (if you don't want to go down the rather complex openxml powertools html converter root) is to add a HTML style attribute to the body section of your HTML fragment as follows:
Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(
#$"<html><head><title></title></head><body style=""font-family: Calibri"">{ConvertUnconventionalUnicodeCharsToAscii(htmlAsString)}</body></html>");
It might be possible to dynamically derive the font family of the "normal" style embedded into the document you are updating and insert that name into the style attribute if deemed compatible.
That way, if you decide to change the base/ normal font the style of the HTML import will attempt to utilise the same font family.
Sorry if a bit off topic, I also could not get alternativeFormatImportPart.FeedData() to process "’" (code 8217) UTF-16 characters and so had to specifically replace them with "'" (code 39) in order to avoid them from being rendered as the following sequence ’
imagine that you want to design a website that learns English to Iranian people (Persian (Farsi) language) . English and Persian (Farsi) doesn't have any similarity in alphabet because Persian is RIGHT TO LEFT and English is LEFT TO RIGHT and completely are different . i didn't find any tags to set one font for all Persian (Farsi) words and other font for all English words . for example set B-Nazanin for Persian and set Times New Roman for English automatically that don't need to define font for every word every time . just define once these fonts . what can we do ?
thanx
One possible option is to give a lang="fa-IR" attribute/value to the <html> or to any other elements within the document when the website is shown in persian language.
Hence you can override CSS declarations by using [lang|="fa"] selector.
For instance:
[lang|="fa"] p { font-family: "B-Nazanin"; }
<html lang="fa-IR">
<p> سلام دنیا </p>
</html>
Or:
p[lang|="fa"] { font-family: "B-Nazanin"; }
<p>Hello World!</p>
<p lang="fa-IR">سلام دنیا!</p>
you can use the following link for this purpose:
Display text with two language in webpage with different fonts with font-face at rule in css
#font-face { /* Persian Font */
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url(Fonts/BYekan.ttf);
unicode-range:U+0600-06FF;
}
#font-face { /* english font */
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url(Fonts/ALGER.TTF);
unicode-range: U+0020-007F;
}
Usage:
body{
font-family: 'MyFont';}
tip: for different languages you can use different "unicode-range".
using style content by language in HTML is to use the :lang selector in your CSS style sheet. ex :
:lang(ta) {
font-family: Latha, "Tamil MN", serif;
font-size: 120%;
}
and dont forget use lang in you HTML code
<p lang="en">Ceci est un paragraphe.</p>
If you really want to use two different fonts for two different languages, your options are:
1) Use some markup that distinguishes between the languages. This could be a class attribute or (more logically, but with slightly more limited browser support) a lang attribute. Of course, you would use this for the language with smaller frequency. This is a lot of work of course. Depending on content generation system, it might or might not be automated.
2) Select the fonts so that the primary font does not contain glyphs for characters in the other language. For example, if you set * { font-family: foo, bar } and foo contains Latin letters but no Arabic characters, foo will be used for English and bar for Farsi. Punctuation characters would still be a problem. More importantly, it will be hard to find such fonts.
3) Use CSS code that selects font family by Unicode range. I won’t go into details, since this approach has too limited browser support to be practically useful yet.
However, it seems that you are trying to create a problem rather than solve one. By typographic principles, the same font should be used for copy text if possible. You should select a font that is suitable for both English and Farsi, or better still a list of such fonts (since no font is available on all computers), or a downloadable font of that kind. Failing that, you might select two fonts, or two lists of fonts, carefully selected, so that you list them both or all and browsers will use them in a natural way: using, for each character, the first font in the list that contains it.
use B-Nazanin or others for persian content and use Open sans for english contect.
If you want to set B-nazanin for persian and set open sans for english, try this code in css:
body{
font-family: "Open sans","B-nazanin";
}
If I understand your question correctly, you will mix Farsi and English on one web site.
Assign two classes, perhaps "farsi" and "english" with appropriate font-family declarations. Then put the Farsi text inside <div class="farsi"> and the English in <div class="english">.
Edited to address mixing languages: You put the <div> around the primary language and use <span> for words in the other language.
I don't think there is an easy way to finely mix languages with different alphabets and even writing directions. Perhaps you can use a macro in your HTML composition tool, or something, to accomplish adding the necessary tags.
When we change an icon foundry, it causes a minor snafu in that a lot of code needs to be revisited because icon names change. Some automated translation might be possible using text utils, but not when icon names are generated in a structured way (e.g., i-star-filled v/s i-star-empty based on a boolean).
What I want instead is to use functional names for my icons (such as xyz-search, xyz-cancel, xyz-filterable, etc.) and then map them to the actual icon name provided by the foundry. For example, glyphicon names might be different from those used by font awesome. How can I provide some kind of indirection (the same kind of liberation that HTML tags strong and em provide)?
Our first thought was to use a lookup table in javascript to translate from one namespace into another. But that works only when the HTML is being generated (we use angularjs); not helpful for static code, nor in those few cases where the icon name is generated computationally, as in the example in the first para.
So now we are toying with SASS (I have googled a fair bit but all in vain, nor is my CSS very shiny). Is there a SASS idiom that fits here, to translate something like
<i class="xyz-filterable ...">
to
<i class="i-funnel ...">
for the same visual and interaction outcome. (I understand the actual CSS will look quite different)
I do not want to use any foo.addClass().
Thanks
Use #extend:
Sass:
.xyz-filterable {
background-image: url(foo.png);
}
.i-funnel {
#extend .xyz-filterable;
}
Compiled CSS:
.xyz-filterable, .i-funnel {
background-image: url(foo.png);
}
I want to create something like
<menu>
<lunch>
<dish>aaa</dish>
<dish>bbb</dish>
</lunch>
<dinner>
<dish>ccc</dish>
</dinner>
</menu>
Can it be done in HTML5?
I know I can do it with
<ul id="menu">
<li>
<ul id="lunch">
<li class="dish">aaa</li>
<li class="dish">bbb</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>
<ul id="dinner">
<li class="dish">ccc</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
but it is so much less readable :(
You can use custom tags in browsers, although they won’t be HTML5 (see Are custom elements valid HTML5? and the HTML5 spec).
Let's assume you want to use a custom tag element called <stack>. Here's what you should do...
STEP 1
Normalize its attributes in your CSS Stylesheet (think css reset) -
Example:
stack{display:block;margin:0;padding:0;border:0; ... }
STEP 2
To get it to work in old versions of Internet Explorer, you need to append this script to the head (Important if you need it to work in older versions of IE!):
<!--[if lt IE 9]>
<script> document.createElement("stack"); </script>
<![endif]-->
Then you can use your custom tag freely.
<stack>Overflow</stack>
Feel free to set attributes as well...
<stack id="st2" class="nice"> hello </stack>
I'm not so sure about these answers. As I've just read:
"CUSTOM TAGS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED IN HTML."
http://www.crockford.com/html/
The point here being, that HTML was based on SGML. Unlike XML with its doctypes and schemas, HTML does not become invalid if a browser doesn't know a tag or two. Think of <marquee>. This has not been in the official standard. So while using it made your HTML page "officially unapproved", it didn't break the page either.
Then there is <keygen>, which was Netscape-specific, forgotten in HTML4 and rediscovered and now specified in HTML5.
And also we have custom tag attributes now, like data-XyZzz="..." allowed on all HTML5 tags.
So, while you shouldn't invent a whole custom unspecified markup salad of your own, it's not exactly forbidden to have custom tags in HTML. That is however, unless you want to send it with an +xml Content-Type or embed other XML namespaces, like SVG or MathML. This applies only to SGML-confined HTML.
I just want to add to the previous answers that there is a meaning to use only two-words tags for custom elements.
They should never be standardised.
For example, you want to use the tag <icon>, because you don't like <img>, and you don't like <i> neither...
Well, keep in mind that you're not the only one. Maybe in the future, w3c and/or browsers will specify/implement this tag.
At this time, browsers will probably implements native style for this tag and your website's design may break.
So I'm suggesting to use (according to this example) <img-icon>.
As a matter of fact, the tag <menu> is well defined ie not so used, but defined. It should contain <menuitem> which behave like <li>.
As Michael suggested in the comments, what you want to do is quite possible, but your nomenclature is wrong. You aren't "adding tags to HTML 5," you are creating a new XML document type with your own tags.
I did this for some projects at my last job. Some practical advice:
When you say you want to "add these to HTML 5," I assume what you really mean is that you want the pages to display correctly in a modern browser, without having to do a lot of work on the server side. This can be accomplished by inserting a "stylesheet processing instruction" at the top of the xml file, like <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="menu.xsl"?>. Replace "menu.xsl" with the path to the XSL stylesheet that you create to convert your custom tags into HTML.
Caveats: Your file must be a well-formed XML document, complete with XML header <xml version="1.0">. XML is pickier than HTML about things like mismatched tags. Also, unlike HTML, tags are case-sensitive. You must also make sure that the web server is sending the files with the appropriate mime type "application/xml". Often the web server will be configured to do this automatically if the file extension is ".xml", but check.
Big Caveat: Finally, using the browsers' automatic XSL transformation, as I've described, is really best only for debugging and for limited applications where you have a lot of control. I used it successfully in setting up a simple intranet at my last employer, that was accessed only by a few dozen people at most. Not all browsers support XSL, and those that do don't have completely compatible implementations. So if your pages are to be released into the "wild," it's best to transform them all into HTML on the server side, which can be done with a command line tool, or with a button in many XML editors.
Creating your own tag names in HTML is not possible / not valid. That's what XML, SGML and other general markup languages are for.
What you probably want is
<div id="menu">
<div id="lunch">
<span class="dish">aaa</span>
<span class="dish">bbb</span>
</div>
<div id="dinner">
<span class="dish">ccc</span>
</div>
</div>
Or instead of <div/> and <span/> something like <ul/> and <li/>.
In order to make it look and function right, just hook up some CSS and Javascript.
Custom tags can be used in Safari, Chrome, Opera, and Firefox, at least as far as using them in place of "class=..." goes.
green {color: green} in css works for
<green>This is some text.</green>
<head>
<lunch>
<style type="text/css">
lunch{
color:blue;
font-size:32px;
}
</style>
</lunch>
</head>
<body>
<lunch>
This is how you create custom tags like what he is asking for its very simple just do what i wrote it works yeah no js or convoluted work arounds needed this lets you do exactly what he wrote.
</lunch>
</body>
For embedding metadata, you could try using HTML microdata, but it's even more verbose than using class names.
<div itemscope>
<p>My name is <span itemprop="name">Elizabeth</span>.</p>
</div>
<div itemscope>
<p>My name is <span itemprop="name">Daniel</span>.</p>
</div>
Besides writing an XSL stylesheet, as I described earlier, there is another approach, at least if you are certain that Firefox or another full-fledged XML browser will be used (i.e., NOT Internet Explorer). Skip the XSL transform, and write a complete CSS stylesheet that tells the browser how to format the XML directly. The upside here is that you wouldn't have to learn XSL, which many people find to be a difficult and counterintuitive language. The downside is that your CSS will have to specify the styling very completely, including what are block nodes, what are inlines, etc. Usually, when writing CSS, you can assume that the browser "knows" that <em>, for instance, is an inline node, but it won't have any idea what to do with <dish>.
Finally, its been a few years since I tried this, but my recollection is that IE (at least a few versions back) refused to apply CSS stylesheets directly to XML documents.
The point of HTML is that the tags included in the language have an agreed meaning, that everyone in the world can use and base decisions on - like default styling, or making links clickable, or submitting a form when you click on an <input type="submit">.
Made-up tags like yours are great for humans (because we can learn English and thus know, or at least guess, what your tags mean), but not so good for machines.
Polymer or X-tags allow you to build your own html tags. It is based on native browser's "shadow DOM".
In some circumstances, it may look like creating your own tag names just works fine.
However, this is just your browser's error handling routines at work. And the problem is, different browsers have different error handling routines!
See this example.
The first line contains two made-up elements, what and ever, and they get treated differently by different browsers. The text comes out red in IE11 and Edge, but black in other browsers.
For comparison, the second line is similar, except it contains only valid HTML elements, and it will therefore look the same in all browsers.
body {color:black; background:white;} /* reset */
what, ever:nth-of-type(2) {color:red}
code, span:nth-of-type(2) {color:red}
<p><what></what> <ever>test</ever></p>
<p><code></code> <span>test</span></p>
Another problem with made-up elements is that you won't know what the future holds. If you created a website a couple of years ago with tag names like picture, dialog, details, slot, template etc, expecting them to behave like spans, are you in trouble now!
This is not an option in any HTML specification :)
You can probably do what you want with <div> elements and classes, from the question I'm not sure exactly what you're after, but no, creating your own tags is not an option.
As Nick said, custom tags are not supported by any version of HTML.
But, it won't give any error if you use such markup in your HTML.
It seems like you want to create a list. You can use unordered list <ul> to create the rool elements, and use the <li> tag for the items underneath.
If that's not what you want to achieve, please specify exactly what you want. We can come up with an answer then.
You can add custom attribute through HTML 5 data- Attributes.
For example: Message
That is valid for HTML 5. See http://ejohn.org/blog/html-5-data-attributes/ to get details.
You can just do some custom css styling, this will create a tag that will make the background color red:
redback {background-color:red;}
<redback>This is red</redback>
you can use this:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>MyExample</title>
<style>
bloodred {color: red;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<bloodred>
this is BLOODRED (not to scare you)
</bloodred>
</body>
<script>
var btn = document.createElement("BLOODRED")
</script>
</html>
I found this article on creating custom HTML tags and instantiating them. It simplifies the process and breaks it down into terms anyone can understand and utilize immediately -- but I'm not entirely sure the code samples it contains are valid in all browsers, so caveat emptor and test thoroughly. Nevertheless, it's a great introduction to the subject to get started.
Custom Elements : Defining new elements in HTML