Talk:HTML/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links

Suggestion: External links to tutorials

There used to be a list of external links to 4-5 good HTML tutorials ( among others). I do not understand why this list has been removed? Especially not when there still is a list of external links to validators... why not tutorials? I think it would add extra value to the article.

If there is no objections I will re-add the section with external links to HTML tutorials . (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one reason why i cant take wikipedia seriously, almost no matter the level of quality and relevancy, its hard to get any useful links included. There is no valid reason not to include links to sites like w3cschools, Brugbart, or

Dmoz listings or not, we simply cant just copy links from dmoz as some has suggested, because dmoz has demonstrated that its very hard to get listed whitin reasonable time, not to mention get information regarding your submissions.

I would suggest that some external links are maintained to the most useful Resources, I.E. Those who doesn't teach to much about deprecated attributes and elements, because it will only confuse beginners. Its about time to start looking forward. If people seak information on such, they can easily look them up in the official reference specifications when needed. There is no point in teaching HTML alone anymore, we should start looking at HTML and CSS as being a combined tool, and forget about deprecated attributes. ( (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC))

If the external links do not adhere to the WP:EL guidelines, especially 4.1 Advertising and conflicts of interest then they should not be present, "Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. "

If people want HTML tutorials they can search the internet for them, google does a good job of indexing the web automatically, there is no reason to add links by hand to wikipedia, especially if they conflict with WP:EL. Jeffz1 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"google does a good job... there is no reason to add links..." But that goes for everything!? Why external links to validators but no to tutorials? I think both - if it useful to the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas2008 (talkcontribs) 07:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"google does a good job... there is no reason to add links..." If everyone took this attitude, Google's ranking mechanism would cease to function. Cq142 (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we add 3-4 external links to tutorials which could useful to the readers. A couple of suggestions (which used to be listed): HTML Dog and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas2008 (talkcontribs) 13:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we just need, and listed. I see that the policy on external links has improved, i would also like to respond to the comment on how much extra traffic wikipedia provides webmasters. Obviously there is a reason they post their links, but it actually doesn't account for much more then 10 visitors/months. Users of wikipedia tend to overestimate the traffic coming from wikis, including webmasters spamming links at times. But hay, at least it keeps thep occupied. ( (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Suggestion: Add HTML Dog &



Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC) - Site Recommendation

I would like to suggest PageFace - HTML & XHTML Tutorials there web site has very in-depth and easy to learn tutorials like no other site that I have been to except I believe the people who are really interested in trying to learn HTML would benefit from this site greatly as I have.

Thank You
18:00 August 13, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightilidie (talkcontribs) 17:15, 14 August 2007 UTC

This particular "suggestion" has previously been added to the external links of many pages, and then subsequently removed as linkspam. -- Scjessey 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hightilidie, I've just taken a brief look round the website. Frankly its one of the ugliest most spam-infested sites I have ever seen. Its also completely unfit for purpose — the home page fails validation with 60 errors. This is your own website, right? Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on spam and external links before you consider linking any articles to this site or to anything else you may be working on. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look at the site finding it on a tutorial site and remember seeing it on Talk:HTML but did not think to look at it until now it has some good info I did not see any spam just ads unless you consider advertisement spam in that case almost all your web sites spam. I checked the validation of the site it did fail validation but then again almost all your major web sites fail validation from,,, and so on all fail validation. User:Sakurambo you said the site was one of ugliest sites around I have to disagree its very easy on the eyes I did take a look at your site and I will just ended at that well I would say I like the PlayStation article but I wish I could say more. I do not know if wiki user Hightilidie is the owner of the web site but I will contact them because I need help with my forms as well as some unicode charcters Hope they answer. I'll keep you guys updated but all in all this site has some good info like it or not it its still a good web site from my point of view whish it had more CSS examples though. Tha Web 04:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New tutorial link suggestion though - - - HTML Tutorials Updated Weekly] - As you can see, I just added the first chapter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragnarev (talkcontribs) 18:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC) is one of several interrelated domains spammed frequently enough to Wikipedia that they're now blacklisted. --A. B. (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: HTML elements index

Suggesting HTML elements index (HTML 3.2, HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, XHTML 1.1, HTML 5, XHTML 2.0) for reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 1 July, 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea to link to a comparison table like this, and I like the fact that it's on a fairly noncommercial, notable author's site, but it has some problems. Even the HTML 5-oriented expanded version is a bit misleading, particularly with how it presents the frameset, form, and deprecated elements. XHTML 1.0, for example, does indeed support frameset, s, etc., but the site says otherwise, perhaps because it's assuming XHTML 1.0 Strict? Why then would it not assume HTML 4.0 Strict for the HTML 4.0 column? And XHTML 2.0, by design, does not inherently support forms, but that's the point of XForms, which is essentially part of XHTML 2.0; I'd rather see these caveats noted with footnotes, if XForms elements can't be added. Perhaps splitting the columns (Strict/Transitional/Frameset under HTML 4.0 and XHTML 1.0, and Core/XForms under XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 2.0?) would be another option. —mjb 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It would also be nice to link to a contemporary cross browser tag reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: HTMLQuick

Cosider adding to the tutorials links. Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This one seems good, with no wrong or misleading info in the little bit I looked at. But like the others, it has 2 or 3 Google ads (banner, box and text) on every page. I'd support adding it to the External Links if there's consensus. (I'd also support us no longer linking to any ad-supported tutorials as well.) What do other regular editors of this article think about HTMLQuick? —mjb (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Use the Source, Luke

I noticed that the article doesn't contain information on accessing Source Code to view the HTML code of other websites. I believe that this is a very important fact missed out. I think that something to do with this should be included. I'm not the best at putting words that sound professional (I'm more informal) but I do think that such a part should be added. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Very Good Point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tha Web (talkcontribs) 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. For anyone who didn't know, to view the source code for a page, go to "View" at the top of your browser, then select "Source". I love writing small like this If someone could please add this, that would be helpful. Tommyqiscow (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible article

I noticed that the article hasn't been translated into English yet. Can someone please do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that you still haven't learned how to give constructive criticism. That said: Yes, at least the introduction needs to be rewritten. Both to give a more gentle introduction, and to have a more natural sentense structure. The rest of the article can stay technical; it's a technical subject. Carewolf 09:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying that an incomprehensible article needs to rewritten to make it better is constructive criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't, it's just criticism. It would've been constructive if you had said something that enables people to make it better or understand what exactly about the article was difficult for you to understand, such as a list of new terms that weren't adequately explained when they were introduced, or examples of phrasing that you found confusing or too technical. Sign your posts, too, even if you're not logged in. —mjb 22:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow! What language,! OK, now – disregarding direct personal attacks and sarcasms – you seem to imply that the article either has a bad grammar, or uses too much jargon. Then I suggest that you read the first three sentences in the article and the first section Definition of HTML. You cannot get it easier! If the criticism regards other places in the text, then fix it yourself, but do it constructively. Said: Rursus 09:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey,, that's too much! I've erased the offensive part of your post. Alexius08 (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the source code on many websites and not found the picture why would that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Added section: Basic features

Feel free to add, as long as the additions belong to the base features, that doesn't require CSS to have a visible general semantics, or doesn't belong to the special Frames HTML dialect. The section is intended to be a short'n'fast overview. Said: Rursus 10:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On the wish list

I wish a more detailed comparison between HTML versions, most importantly a description of what is going to differ from 4 to 5. There is discussion of the "officialness" and "standardness" of 5, but it adresses all criticisms that I've felt against SGML/XML (they're not actually defining any semantics), so it will most surely be a success, alongside XHTML and XSLT, of course! Said: Rursus 09:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Time line restructure request

I took the liberty to separate XHTML from HTML in the section Version history of the standard. However, there is a time line in the HTML section that occurs twice:

  1. a list in chronological order,
  2. a prose text in reversed chronological order!!

Shouldn't it be just one chronologically ordered prose text? Otherwise the section will remain very messy. Said: Rursus 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did pretty much, but some cleanup may still be needed, feel free 2 ... Said: Rursus 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing in reverse order. There was a chronological list of specifications, followed by chronological prose that primarily explains why there's no HTML 3.0 in the list, and the switchover from IETF to W3C. That prose probably could be moved up into the main history section.
Separating out the XHTML stuff is fine (and is my preference), but I don't like that you've changed it from being a chronological list of specs into a chronology of spec publication events. That doesn't strike me as an improvement.
Also, bold text on the dates is distracting. If it has to be changed, I think I'd rather see a table, as is often done for software release versions (see Adobe Photoshop release history for an example). I started to make such a table, but am still working out how to make it look good; I'm not entirely sure it's going to be an improvement over a bulleted list. —mjb 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A year later… I made some mostly cosmetic edits to the timeline today, mainly just converting it to a definition list, but it still needs work. I thought it might help to split the drafts into their own list, but the way lists get formatted is too similar to the way headings are formatted. As long as no info is lost and it's clear which standards are still in effect (HTML 3.2, 4.0, 4.01, and the ISO one), I'd like to see other ways to organize and format this info to make it useful and easy to understand. —mjb (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nine years of mystery

The main page of this article needs to have a couple paragraphs on the first nine years between 1980 and 1989. Or is that ten years? Since a lot of people (so-called media specialists and self-taught teachers) go to Wikipedia as the first gate to the threshold of their dubious knowledge, they might think that everybody used HTML during that decade, which of course is not the case. (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what do you mean. HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee and did go only in Christmas 1991... mabdul 18:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

HTML Commands Index

Shouldn't there be an index on Wikipedia for all HTML commands? Since we do use HTML? And a really easy to get to link like maybe one that is listed in this page. If it is already listed or I double posted please just message me to where it is. -PatPeter 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Help:HTML in wikitext tells you what HTML elements are permitted on Wikipedia. It is one of the guides listed on Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. —mjb 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But we don't really use that much Real HTML here. Mostly Wikipedia converts Wikimarkup into html to make the articles. And the markup is shown at the bottom when creating a new article. Complex-Algorithm-Interval 13:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, there are too many HTML commands to put on here. And, there are different variations of HTML, like XHTML, for example. Complex-Algorithm 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Large section removed

I removed the following two sections in an attempt to do some cleanup on the article. I'm sure later some of this will come back in, but hopefully in a better formatted and better flowing article. —— Eagle101Need help? 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Basic features

  • Structured text web pages, with visual formatting of:
    • chapter and section headings,
    • paragraphs and text markup such as italics and bold to stress parts of text,
    • unnumbered and numbered lists,
    • tables;
  • embedding of visible raster images into the text flow;
  • links, which provide access to other web pages on the World Wide Web.

Sophisticated and dynamic documents can be created by combining HTML with presentational languages like CSS, and behavioral languages like JavaScript that give access to the DOM.

Definition of HTML

HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language.

  1. Hypertext is ordinary text that has been dressed up with extra features, such as formatting, images, multimedia, and links to other resources.
  2. Markup is the process of taking ordinary text and adding extra symbols. Each of the symbols used for markup in HTML is a command that tells a browser how to display the text.

Tag References

Shouldn't there be a section of HTML tag references?

It's hard to find contemporary cross browser tag references and the collective experience of Wikipedia would be helpful in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Programming language

Is HTML considered a programming language? WooyiTalk to me? 16:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a Markup Language. It says it right in the name :) (Hypertext Markup Language) --Quezacolt (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Garbled paragraph?

The following paragraph in the "Attributes" section appears to have been munged somehow:

An author may use the style non-attributal codes presentational properties to a particular element. It is considered better practice to use an element’s son- id page and select the element with a stylesheet, though sometimes this can be too cumbersome for a simple ad hoc application of styled properties.

Anyway, I can't make sense of it. Can somebody more knowledgeable clean it up? Dodiad (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Other markup languages for web pages?

The article says html is the predominant markup language for web pages. Which other exists? Is not html the only one?--Adsfawer (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How to analyse a website functionality?

Hello friends,

I am new to the field of marketing a software service, and I want to know in a layman's language -- How do we rate a website --whether it's a 'good' site or a 'not so good' site? Please ignore the role of content or language in the site. But do let me know, how do we rate a site on the basis of design, links, placement of graphics, tools used (like PHP, Flash, HTML, AJAX, ASP, JAVA... etc), certificates, Site-map, Slow / Fast. light or heavy... etc. Which one is better or a good site?

Also please let me know, how to find out for a particular site about the main tools (PHP/HTML/Flash) used in it, by just looking at for only 5 minutes.

Thank You Very Much Prashant (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

CSS related propose move

Propose move Internet Explorer box model bug to CSS box model problem (Discuss here: Talk:Internet Explorer box model bug#Requested move 2) --Voidvector (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Semantics Non-NPOV

The semantics section of the article is definitely one of the longest sections, despite no references. Moreover, it's a long section praising the idea of semantics over style. I think it'd be a good idea to trim the section, present it far more neutrally and provide an argument against semantics.Kakomu (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I re-wrote the Semantics section to condense it. I removed the non-neutral language. I added a paragraph explaining the shortfalls of Semantic HTML.Kakomu (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

new tutorial site

hello. I have posted a new link under the tutorial listings, but find that some are deleting my link by reason of the the sites simplicity...

according to the External Link guidelines:

==Links normally to be avoided ==

6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article

and this site is just that... a concise collection of hand written materials for the purpose of teaching the absolute basics of HTML. These tutorials contains no advertising, external links, or materials other than HTML. It is for beginners. Would the wikipedia community approve it's listing? Joshebosh (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that your site is not the subject of this article. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Aside from what Magic.Wiki has already explained, your addition of this site violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Self-promotion, the "HTML" on the site is bad in almost every possible way, and we already have better tutorial links (last I checked). You should consider taking your website down, as it will surely do a disservice to anyone who decides to use it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

HTML support in Browser

It would be nice to have on Wikipedia a table which shows the various Browsers and the HTML standards they fully support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Check dis outtttt: Comparison of layout engines (HTML) --Ysangkok (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then since someone has to ask; is this link on the HTML page? If not I'm going to add it. NormiAd (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is — part of the {{html series}} infobox. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Let's say that somone opens this page trying to learn HTML. This will not help them at all. They would have to use may other sites to have any idea at all how to use HTML at all. I think that somebody should add to this page more of a tutorial. Please talk to me on my talk page, not here. NoRmIaD (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

HTML Icon illustration

Not too long ago, a WP contributor replaced the stylized icon representation of HTML with an alternate image. The rationale given was:

   (cur) (prev)  2009-06-27T23:24:04 Reisio (talk | contribs) (52,389 bytes) (replace silly non-"screenshot" icon image) (undo) 

Although it is always appropriate to attempt to improve article content, this change did not constitute an improvement for the following reasons:

  • Established convention: The original icon representation is part of a standardization effort across numerous WP articles
  • Numerous contributors: The original image series has undergone numerous modifications and enhancement by multiple WP contributors, the result of cumulative combined effort
  • Image features: The original image series includes: 1) context (shows a stylized "page" printout); 2) identification (content is self-identified as "HTML" in the image itself); and 3) representation (the image shows a fragment of markup)
  • Screenshots: Screenshots can be included in addition to the icon representation as part of the article content (see e.g., SGML for an example). Also, the image uses non-English text to make the markup structure more prominent and more amenable to use on non-English WP sites as well as English WP
  • International scope: Images in the original series have been adopted on several non-English WP versions
  • Open-source: The original image series is based on SVG which means that anyone can adapt them for other uses, which has been done numerous times on numerous other sites and non-English WP sites

The replacement image did not appear to have any of the above attributes, except for item 3) under "Image features". For that reason, the original image was restored to the article.

Please feel free to comment and provide suggestions for how you would like to improve the existing content if you wish to make a change. Please also consider and be willing to discuss the above issues if you would like to propose an improvement over the current situation. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with switch back. I must have missed that on watchlist, else I would have reverted the change at the time. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody got my approval (or anyone else's?) for this magical new "convention", why does anyone else need yours (to go back to a real status quo)? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a rational, coherent justification for removing a contribution that is part of a series of multiple contributions, please feel free to present it. If you have multiple contributions of your own you would like to offer, please do so. Your appeals to authority and approval seem to be out of context and not relevant to this discussion. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides, I don't see that you've provided an argument against Dreftymac's arguments. You should not revert until discussion is over. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They look nice and all, but I find the bent corner and the gradients to be too much on the SVG. The syntax highlighting on the PNG is also too much and the text is too small. An SVG should definitely be used in the end. --Quilokos (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An SVG screenshot? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the screenshot of? HTML is not a program, application, system, or anything visual; it is text. Also, using a PNG, GIF, or JPG, anything not scalable, for just text is a big accessibility problem, visually, and it is discouraged by web standards. I have a high resolution (1600 by 1280) and all I see is tiny letters that are hard to make out on that PNG. An SVG gives me a little more freedom, but considering all that's being shown here is text with no significant meaning other than being HTML, it shouldn't even be a graphic to begin with. I mean, the code (text) on the JavaScript one is incorrect, outdated, and poor — making a new graphic each time the text needs to be updated is a complete waste of time. A DIV element that clips text horizontally or nothing at all would be best in my opinion, but if an image of text needs to be shown for some odd reason, then an SVG (or something scalable) is better. --Quilokos (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't care if there's no image, just as long as we don't use these file type icons like they're anything but. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
As an aside Quilokos, you should probably raise those issues on Dretymac's talk page. I can agree with the corner point, alone. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Reisio reverted again to his apparent personal preference, and I have undone that. There is now no image. Please, Reisio, feel free to address any of the issues I brought up if you would like to propose an improvement. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

All these {{Unreferenced}} templates

Some one has carefully and doggedly added no less than eight of these templates to the article, so that it now looks a total mess. What is the point of this? Most of the text that follows each template seems to be a paraphrase of some part of a W3C spec for that area. Is someone seriously suggesting that this is disputable information that should be removed if we can't prove that reliable sources back it up? A published spec is a published spec, and this article just describes them, doesn't it? What's the problem? --Nigelj (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed one from Semantic HTML section, which was put in maliciously, and someone came along and undid it. If you restore it I will support you. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure in this case. Back in May, they were everywhere, like someone disputed the very existence of HTML, but this one is not like that. The concept of Semantic HTML and the semantic web have not been well taught to many current web practitioners. While the ideas have clear roots back to the origins of HTML and clear advantages to those who understand where we're trying to get to with the web itself, many do still see HTML as just a way to get their page to look right. People who think like that are going to need some persuading that there is any point in giving HTML page design any more thought than the minimum required to get the visual effects they want.
I see this {{Unreferenced}} tag as just such a cry for help. I think the best we can do here is to find a few reputable tutorial or descriptive websites somewhere and reference them. What you usually find when you start doing this is that the references have explained it better than the existing unreferenced WP text, and so the article gets improved textually too. I think that will happen here as I also don't feel that this little section hits the nail squarely on the head as it stands. I'm going to start by looking through Semantic Web and its references for ideas, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the Semantic HTML section in its current form. The problem with semantic HTML (and it's written in the first line) is that there's no specific definition. The definitions vary from author to author and most of them try to proselytize more than teach. As such, when writing, I felt I had to take the most basic and generic tenets that were shared among authors and present it in a neutral fashion. For this reason, I wasn't really able to cite to anyone. If someone can find a reputable source that discusses semantic HTML as its written here, and wiki can come to a consensus that the article on semantic HTML as its written now is good, then we can probably source it. Otherwise, its bound to vary depending on who you source as a lot of people have opinions about semantic HTML (due to the aforementioned lack of definition).Kakomu (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Kakomu. Well, I've had a go at updating that section with plenty of external references and cross-references within WP. As I suspected, once you start doing that, you end up having to reflect what the sources say more than just what you think. I've also brought things more up to date re folksonomies, microformats etc. I hope I haven't been too bold and upset anyone. I'm sure what I've done can be further improved. --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nigel, the tag was added maliciously by one of a group of four who have been wikihounding me for some months now. He couldn't revert the changes I made, so he just stuck his oar in to get at me. However, this has led to you re-writing with TBL as a great source, so well done. And well done to you also Kakomu, I removed the tag because I thought you had done a great job, and no one with half a brain could honestly say anything you had written was challengable. Good job guys! HarryAlffa (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised that you—a self-proclaimed expert in HTML, semantic HTML and etc failed to add references yourself preferring to remove the tag, which was actually added back in January. I suspected that thousands of books discuss semantic HTML in detail, so, I reinstated the tag on a few occasions to encourage others to find reliable sources. Ruslik_Zero 07:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

'How can HTML be implemented in awebsite' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Wolfhoundfeet (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Criticism of the HTML was added to this article and then removed.

The source of one of the criticisms was from Steven Pemberton a former chair of the HTML Working Group at W3C. He wrote "HTML is a mess!" and "rather than being designed, HTML just grew, by different people just adding stuff to it." Source: This is an important view point. Being the former chair of the HTML Working Group makes this source reliable and it needs to be included as part of this article.

The other criticism was from Vlad Alexander who claimed that the HTML specification has been a failure, because only a small percentage of the intended users of the HTML specification use it correctly. Source: Criticisms tend to be a minority view. However, this criticism is backed up by facts. More than 90% of Web pages on the Web are not written to the HTML specification. According to Wikipedia's definition of specification: "A specification is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service. Should a material, product or service fail to meet one or more of the applicable specifications, it may be referred to as being out of specification", the HTML specification is clearly "out of specification".

Generally, criticism sections are to be avoided as it is almost impossible to maintain a neutral point of view. The information is sourced but the sources don't seem to represent anything but a small minority view. I can find sourced criticisms of virtually any subject on Wikipedia, but not without violating undue weight. I'd like to hear what other editors think about the addition of this section. I think a consensus can be reached regarding its inclusion. Wperdue (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In the industry (Web design/development), "HTML is a mess" is not a small minority view. In fact there is a special name for this - it's called Tag Soup - please see: The editor of the HTML5 spec, Ian Hickson, acknowledges the existence of Tag Soup, gives statistics on Tag Soup and attributes success of the Web to the existence of Tag Soup in this interview: Wolfhoundfeet (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If Wolfhoundfeet's assertion is true: That HTML is Heavily criticised, then it should be easy to find plenty of sources. So find some more sources until Wperdue agrees with you. wp:verifiable Dethlock99 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a really bad articel, since no criticisms regarding the basic principles of this programming language is included. In reality, HTML prevents the progress in programming web applications in a way that it makes it impossible, to write comfortable applications. Compare the programming of windows applications from that of using HTML. Stone Age vs. Modern era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Should a w3schools link be added?

I feel that w3schools link should be added, as it is a great resource for new website developers! That is where I learned HTML! Thanks, Kcmartz (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. All their HTML information is redundant to's, except for the erroneous parts. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As a rule, it's best to avoid linking commercial websites not directly affiliated with a product. Linking the W3C website is fine, but this is an encyclopedia, not a tutorial or link aggregator site. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
For the time being, it might be acceptable to put a link in the External Links subsection, "HTML tutorials". It doesn't bother me as much if it is well-segregated from article content and clearly identified. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the intentions of some of these sites, it looks like they are trying to sell something. Not that this is bad, but they should at least put in a bit of work on the quality of their sites i think.

I do tend to defend commercial websites, and the use of ads. (It shouldn't be a factor when deciding to link to a site). But there got to be a limit to what we accept. This is not because i don't like the sites, this is mainly to ensure the quality of the links. Some sites are obviously just trying to draw in visitors, and sell a product. This is not bad in itself, but when they ain't honest about this fact, i just find it hard to view them as an authority in their fields, and there are just to many junk sites to list these days.

They certainly don't look like they are trying to establish an authority website, and then i think, its where we could consider whether their sites are of value to readers. I actually find that the sites with commercial interests, often have a comprehensive amount of quality content. Sukmein (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't there separate articles

Why aren't there seperate articles for HTML 1, HTML 2, HTML 3(HTML +), and HTML 4?Smallman12q (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a textbook. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, if anyone wants to study the evolution of HTML in that level of detail, there are hundreds of textbooks available online and at any decent public library. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-textual content

The HTML#Elements contains a statement that there is textual or graphical content, which is a bit misleading. First, images are usually included via <a> tags, not in content. Second, there is a conceptual difference between HTML code itself and rendered HTML. Rendered HTML does not necessary contain any graphics, because there are text-only browsers or it may be just disabled. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

<a href="/" title="Home page"><img src="logo.png" alt="logo" />&reg;</a> 

In this example, the 'a' element has 'a "start tag" and "end tag"; some element attributes given to the element within the tags; and finally, all the actual, textual and graphical, information content that will be rendered on the display'. There is no textual information, just an image and a graphic that means 'registered trade mark'. How could this be more clearly summarised? OK, I think there's something wrong with the description of attributes - it's not at all clear that these are inside the start tag, and why 'element attributes'? --Nigelj (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)