|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HTML article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|HTML has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 "Also called 'chevrons' in the UK"
- 2 shortcut
- 3 code unity
- 4 wiki code
- 5 Discrepancy about document HTML Tags
- 6 Quote from creator
- 7 Edit request on 12 April 2012
- 8 Inline vs. block
- 9 Balancing the tags
- 10 Remove reference to W3C as current maintainer of HTML
- 11 doni
- 12 Link to overview of all HTML elements?
- 13 Other Html tags
- 14 O great Contributor - or sneaky advertiser?
"Also called 'chevrons' in the UK"
User:Durrantm seems determined to add to the article that the angle brackets in HTML tags can be called chevrons. I live in the UK and have never heard them called that in web development. ⟨Actual chevrons⟩, as the relevant article explains are completely different Unicode characters, which will not be recognised as <angle brackets> by any HTML processor or browser. It might be valid to mention that the angle-bracket characters spent the first few decades of their life in ASCII intended to be mathematical less-than and greater-than signs, before SGML and HTML re-used them. But they are not chevrons, not used as chevrons in HTML and there is no valid reason why we should let the reader be misled into thinking they are, or that anybody who knows what they're talking about says that they are. --Nigelj (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Justsomethoughts2011 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Justsomethoughts2011 Suggestion - I think this article will more accessible and valuable if it actually discusses why HTML had to be used in the first place. I think people do not understand the relationship between a "word" document and the text that appears on a site. Obviously different codes/programs were created to interpret the two types of texts - but what's the connection? Basically WHY is HTML specific to the world wide web?
- I support user Durrantm`s chevron. The square bracket has a simmilar issue, and to say 'pointy brackets' isn`t very clever, because sharp edges may get confusing to users who work in automotive industry like myself with principles on haerodynamic edges and smooth shapes, especially in 3D design. Even wiki code do not use such brackets. Have | mentioned wiki has a list of symbols and neither it`s Unicode ? Paul184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
| suggest a separate marker for RFC 2854 link outside wikipedia.com domain, maybe a page that inform leaving the wikipedia.com. Thank you 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) LE: Yes, | know there are different squared brackets, but the blue links has the look of a wiki article, and there is no template/flag to inform me details on the article | lend on.
| suggest the code
""consisting of tags, enclosed in angle brackets ( like <html> and </html> ) within ""
instead of current
""consisting of tags, enclosed in angle brackets (like <html> ), within ""
While in "code uity" thread, | stumbled upon a major error
""consisting of tags, enclosed in angle brackets (like <font style="color: red; border: 1px solid #f6a; background-color: #fff8f0;"><html> and </html> </font>) within ""
Discrepancy about document HTML Tags
In the section "First specifications" there is the following statement about the number of elements described by the document HTML Tags
"The first publicly available description of HTML was a document called HTML Tags, first mentioned on the Internet by Berners-Lee in late 1991. It describes 20 elements comprising the initial, relatively simple design of HTML."
In the section "HTML draft version timeline" there is another statement about the number of HTML tags described by this document
"HTML Tags, an informal CERN document listing twelve HTML tags, was first mentioned in public."
Well, it seems simple: you count them and that's that. Right? Uh, are headings, -Hn- a tag or six? (-h1-, -h2-, ...) Ditto for -HPn-. And is basefont, discussed here to beome -base- in HTML 2 a tag? It's not given a tag here. And is -NEXTID- a tag? It says here that it's specific to tBL's NeXT computer, and not intended as a tag (though, for the moment, it was a a tag). Answering each of the four above with "it's one tag" gives a total of eighteen, which I've edited in as if it were "the" right number. I think it gives a good general picture of the early tag set. MartinRinehart (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Quote from creator
I think that this quote should be added to this article.
“Making the Web was really simple because there was already this morass of things being developed on the Internet,” including protocols such as TCP/IP and other standards. “All I had to do on top of that to create the Web was to create a single global space, which some people said was rather arrogant…. HTTP was a new scheme for the Web… and the idea was that it would minimally constraining.”
http://www.eioba.com/a/x4/tim-berners-lee-weaving-a-semantic-web#ixzz1KDRIwZ8S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 12 April 2012
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
There's irrelevant information about an individual at the beginning of this article. Please remove:
"Osman Haji Mohamed 1920-July 28,1975 ... He died on July 28, 1975." as well as the references section below the table of contents.
Right below this, there is a broken infobox for the html file format.
Inline vs. block
Block vs. inline is one of the more important HTML concepts (albeit one that is renamed in HTML 5). This page probably should at least briefly define the terms. In fact, the pages does use the word "inline" in the technical sense twice, but without defining it. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think we used to have an article on this, and the three meanings of block vs. inline. I wrote it, actually pasted it from one of my corporate wikis. It was then deleted by someone who admitted they didn't understand HTML, but had found WP:NOTHOWTO as a policy to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- There should be a link from HTML to HTML element, where this is explained. I agree that it's difficult to find. LittleBen (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- As that article begins by claiming that HTML documents contain "elements", we've still got some way to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- XKCD, as with any webcomic, is not particularly useful to the reader. I would object to its placement in the article. The majority of Randall's articles are in-jokes, which do not serve to illuminate the topic any more than the article already does or should. With rare exception of course, usually not made in a joking manner; see e.g. his diagram on the gravity wells of the various planets. Which, even then, you need to understand the concept of gravity wells before understanding the image. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Remove reference to W3C as current maintainer of HTML
I removed the sentence in the introduction that listed the W3C as the active maintainer of HTML. It is not so.
The WHATWG is now the maintainer of HTML, and has been since the W3C adopted HTML5 instead of HTML4.x. Here is the reference: Hickson, Ian (19 January 2011). "HTML is the new HTML5". WHATWG. Retrieved 21 January 2011.
another reference: "HTML5 — Smile, it's a Snapshot!". W3C Blog. 2012-12-17. Retrieved 2013-01-14.
There is a much bigger problem that I need the community to fix!
This article is not NPV. It is biased throughout to support the notion that Tim Berhners-Lee "invented the internet"...this article credits Behrners-Lee with writing HTML but on the HTML wiki the Internet Engineering Task Force is shown to play the bigger role.
The IETF made HTML with the help of many people, one of which was Tim Berhners-Lee.
To fix the NPV issue credit for hypertext should go back to Stanford Research and the Mother of all Demos in 1968. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos. Credit for HTML should emphasize it's development from SGML.
Currently, the article has one sentence that is NPV...here:
"Berners-Lee considered HTML to be an application of SGML. It was formally defined as such by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)"
- The sentence that you removed wasn't about who maintains the HTML standard. It was about preferring CSS over explicit presentational HTML - that is, markup like
<span style="color: red;">...</span>instead of
<font color=red>...</font>. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Link to overview of all HTML elements?
Suggesting this here to address a conflict of interest situation: How about the article refers to an overview of all HTML elements? I suggest meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/. It’s an index that I myself maintain (conflict of interest), but I also believe it’s the only one that is comprehensive in that it contains the HTML elements of all versions (up from HTML 3.2).--j9t (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
O great Contributor - or sneaky advertiser?
While checking the contents of the HTML category I came across the "Ericom Software"-company indexed under E. But as far as I can see from their wiki page, Ericom is just another software company developing various remote desktop products (Citrix alternatives). One of their products is based on HTML5.
I could easily see how other enterprises (like Yeoman, Nokogiri, and members of the HTML Working Group) earned their mention - through open source, drafting and other contributions
However developing a commercial proprietary piece of software based on HTML5, like Ericom appears to be doing, seems a tad lesser contribution. It could easily be imagined that it is in fact HTML5 that is contributing to Ericom's profit margins. If that is the case then Wikipedia is probably not hurting the margins much by keeping their company name listed among significant contributors - on pages relevant to their products.