Talk:HTML

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject iconThis article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 3 June 2019 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon
 
WikiProject Computer science (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"Also called 'chevrons' in the UK"[edit]

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 ? Paul188.25.109.59 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose including that: it's a distraction from the main point and doesn't help give any information about the language. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

shortcut[edit]

| suggest a separate marker for RFC 2854 link outside wikipedia.com domain, maybe a page that inform leaving the wikipedia.com. Thank you 188.25.109.59 (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.

code unity[edit]

| 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 ""

If someone argues the colour frame you may remove it. 188.25.109.59 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

wiki code[edit]

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 ""

, because | cannot use the space lead for simple frame delimitation. 188.25.109.59 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy about document HTML Tags[edit]

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."

20 elements versus twelve HTML tags: This is a discrepancy, isn't it? --Th.k.walter (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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[edit]

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.”

Not opposed to the addition, but the last sentence ends "it would minimally constraining." Missing a word? The quote here matches the reference below.MartinRinehart (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.eioba.com/a/x4/tim-berners-lee-weaving-a-semantic-web#ixzz1KDRIwZ8S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.101.238 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2012[edit]

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.

Soufits (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism fixed now.--Salix (talk): 07:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Inline vs. block[edit]

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)
  • I cleaned up and shortened Template:HTML, and added it to the page. That should encourage users to explore. ;-) LittleBen (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Balancing the tags[edit]

Is there a place for http://xkcd.com/1144/ perhaps under External links? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2013 (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[edit]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Force

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)"

however the other parts of the article contradict this...these parts are not NPV and must be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.69.8 (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

doni[edit]

ahay ml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.17.81 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Link to overview of all HTML elements?[edit]

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.--j9t (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Other Html tags[edit]

Okay, so I saw some example of the basic tags and how to use them. So should we add other common tags such as lists (organized and unorganized)? TheQ Editor (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


O great Contributor - or sneaky advertiser?[edit]

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.

However, HTML being yet another area not of my expertise - I hope someone who knows more can check it out and make the right call. Tungstic (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose at least to half-lock this article[edit]

Because of the continuing advertisement, spam and other violation I propose at least to half-lock this article. I don't know, what's the name for half-lock in english wiki, so I translated it exactly from the czech wiki. Aleskva (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Aleskva: It's called semi-protection. Please file a request at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, filled successfully Aleskva (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge Ljgua124 (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest merging HTML5 and Semantic HTML into this article because they both refer to the same topic. HTML5 is simply the newest version of the HTML definition as defined by W3C, just as HTML4,HTML3 (which shouldn't actually even exist because there is no such thing as HTML3), and HTML2 all redirects to HTML.. (because like HTML5, these are all versions of HTML)..

Similarly, Semantic HTML is simply a best-practice methodology for writing HTML and should be detailed in the main article, not in a separate article. David Condrey (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

With the present content of S_HTML, I think I can agree that it would fit nicely in this article. Which isn't to say that it couldn't or shouldn't be split out again; I don't think it would be difficult to find a large number of sources to keep it in its own article as there has been quite a lot written about pushing authors to use S_HTML.

However, the content of HTML 5 looks like it would best be kept separate given its present content and scope. --Izno (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@David Condrey: It is incorrect to say "shouldn't actually even exist because there is no such thing as HTML3" - it does exist, but didn't get beyond the draft stage and was never approved as a formal standard. The stage that it had reached at the time that it was abandoned may be found at HTML 3.0 Draft (Exprired!) Materials. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
HTML5 isn't "simply" a new update. It includes many upgrades and There are thousands of websites divoted to the subject.VirusKA (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Merge HTML5 and Semantic HTML are really big articles that covers a whole of of details. So merging would not be appropriate. Rather a section could be created that explains a brief bit of a HTML5 and the same for Semantic HTML. DSCrowned(Talk) 23:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Merge The current size of HTML is 70.101 kB, and the size of HTML5 is 39.314 kB. The recommended article size is below 50 kB, and if the readable prose size is greater than 60 kB, then the article "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". So this article is already too long. If HTML5 is merged into this article, the size will even go above 100 kB. Also it would be weird if HTML5 doesn't have its own article, but HTML5 Video, HTML5 Audio, and Canvas element have. Chmarkine (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge for same reasons as stated above. HTML5 is such a drastic change from the existing HTML standard, because the W3C wasted so much time and effort trying to develop Semantic Web standards before realizing that no one was paying attention because most of the Semantic Web standards are far too arcane to make a business case for them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge HTNL5 is a new philosophy, compared to HTML. HTML5 and HTML are not the same. Marquis4057 (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Merge I also agree with the above contributors. HTML5 and HTML are more similar in name only, as HTML5 brings many new elements which would not be appropriate to include in the HTML article, such as the HTML5 Video, HTML5 Audio, and Canvas element elements mentioned above. Blaise170 (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge per above. HTML5 is completely different. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 06:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014[edit]

106.219.131.167 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HTML. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing citation[edit]

There are no citations in the second body of text. Please add. --Madisynkeri (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

'HTML standards' versus 'the HTML standard'[edit]

I shall not revert your reversion as I have less than no interest in edit-warring, but I am curious what you think is misleading about the substance of my edit. From my perspective, at worst it clutters the lede slightly with qualifying language, but at best it eliminates the possible misconception in the reader that "HTML" is technically uniform. Perhaps we should ask Talk:HTML for their take? Arlo James Barnes 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Should this be "HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is the standard markup language for creating web pages and web applications."
vs. "HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is any of several very similar standard markup languages for creating web pages and web applications." ~
The question is "what the first term means" and "what the alternatives to this are".
Obviously there are two possible sets of meanings: for one (as I see it as reading previously) see "HTML the standard markup language" as meaning "all the HTML versions" and "other than this" means PDF, Word documents, Flash etc. Another meaning (the second) would be that HTML means just one version of HTML (why? - they're all "HTML", from HTML 2 to HTML5), which is now followed by the text "is any of several very similar standard markup languages". I see this as a problem. What are these "very similar languages" which are not HTML, as they've just been distinguished as a contrast to HTML? That's misleading: it suggests something as if the web is also authored to a significant degree in non-HTML SGML or non-HTML XML. I think we would agree, "The web is written in HTML". We need to communicate that first.
Now before we get into versions of HTML, I think the key point, which needs to be stated, and stated before anything about HTML versions, is that HTML (any version) is ubiquitous on the web and its use dwarfs any other sort of markup. I see the changed wording as potentially too confusing Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's singular. There is only one HTML standard (in various incremental versions), published by W3C. The WHATWG material is an applied interpretation of the W3C standard for browser implementation, and is not an independent or competing standard of its own.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Hypertext Markup Language"[edit]

According to all the available official references, including both the original IETF specification and the latest W3C recommendation, the capitalization for the full name of HTML is "Hypertext Markup Language", not "HyperText Markup Language", as given in the introduction. Could an established editor please review and fix? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:38D9:953F:2C2C:9EF6:20C (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Mention HTML being a Domain-Specific Language[edit]

I believe the current definition of the language lacks what type of programming language HTML actually is. I therefore think it would be useful to change the first sentence to HTML is a Domain Specific Language [1] that is the standard markup language[...]. This would benefit readers interested in how the programming language actually works and how it's designed, as HTML is a different type of language than, say, Python.

Later edit: This is my first time doing an edit request on wikipedia, I apologise for any mistakes

Later edit2: I misused the term programming in the sentence above, it should be replaced by computer language. Just to make everything clearer, I propose the change to be from Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is the standard markup language[...] to Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is a domain-specific markup language[...]Durolan (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


"what type of programming language HTML actually is"
Easy. It isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I might have rushed calling it a programming language seeing as they're referred to as Computer Languages[2] but that does not mean HTML is not a domain-specific language. It is specialised to a certain domain i.e. web pages. It talks about it in the first referenced wiki article I linked. Durolan (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This is an article on HTML, not on DSLs. DSLs are not a common or well-understood term. In what way would the HTML article be improved by using such an obscure and poorly understood term?
Whether DSLs are programming languages, or need not be, is a matter of some debate. There are authorities who would claim either. However it is rare to see HTML described as one. Compare particularly to CSS, which often is considered as such.
If HTML is a DSL, then what is that domain? It's not "web pages", certainly. It might be true that the web runs on HTML, but HTML is of broader application than web pages alone: it's a much more generalised text markup language than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I honestly doubt you accessed the article I have sent on DSLs as it answers almost everything you asked. This is an article on HTML, not on DSLs - This is an article on HTML, a DSL. It is not at all a poorly understood or obscure term, if that is your opinion on it it's not my responsibility to explain to you why it's not. I already mentioned HTML is not a programming language and that computer language would've been a better term for it, so the fact that DSLs are programming languages was never even up for debate. As for your question If HTML is a DSL, then what is that domain? there's plenty of material available online that would answer this question better than I could. I would suggest starting exactly with the wiki article I quoted in my first link. If it's not a DSL or a GPL what is it then? a text processing language? Which category does that fall in? I sense hostility and little to no research done behind it, I was expecting a better experience / more maturity when discussing such topics with other users. Durolan (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to slag off another editor as ignorant in an argument about the finer semantic points as to firstly whether HTML is a DSL or not, and more importantly whether this article would be improved by using DSL as a definition in the first sentence of the lead, then you might be better served if you first learned to use wikilinks, then to not call HTML a "programming language" or compare it to Python. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Like I mentioned in my first edit, it is my first time editing a wiki article so I am not yet sure how everything works. Your answer literally was Easy. It isn't. which was supposed to help me how? I also used Python as a comparison exactly to show how different those two types of languages are, one being Domain Specific while the other being a general purpose language. Already mentioned 3 times that I was wrong calling it a programming language and that the better term for it is Computer Language. This to me seems like an argument to logic, you highlighting that I do not use wikilinks and that I call it a programming language does not make HTML less of a DSL. Durolan (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Durolan, for this edit request, and I can honestly say that you are not the first editor to enjoy the labor pains of making one's first edits to Wikipedia. After wading through the above, I find that the main question is how including the DSL description in the lead would improve this article. I myself would think that a link, such as "domain-specific language" wouldn't be so bad; however, Andy Dingley seems to have raised some legitimate concerns about this proposal. As for what the domain is, that is already shown in this article's lead as web pages and web applications. Since there has been a bit of resistance to your proposal, then I must ask you to seek a consensus for it before again using the {{edit semi-protected}} template, and this proposal is:
    Not done for now:  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017[edit]

86.124.148.195 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 11:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Number of SGMLguid tags in HTML 4[edit]

The article says eleven, but I count fifteen, namely:

  1. TITLE (under HEAD in HTML, under TITLEP in SGMLguid)
  2. BODY
  3. H1 (level N heading - SGMLguid also had H0)
  4. H2
  5. H3
  6. H4
  7. H5
  8. H6
  9. P (paragraph)
  10. OL (ordered list)
  11. UL (unordered list)
  12. LI (list item, for OL and UL)
  13. DL (description list - SGMLguid and today's common parlance call them definition lists)
  14. DT (definition list term)
  15. DD (definition list definition)

Hairy Dude (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I misread the section. It talks about Berners-Lee's first document describing tags used in HTML. Still, I count fourteen (all the above except BODY and OL, plus A). Hairy Dude (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Javascript, a "cornerstone technology?"[edit]

How can JavaScript be in "a triad of cornerstone technologies for the World Wide Web" when it must require a microsoft compliant computer?

I use OS/2 v4.5 eCS 2.2 with my FireFox 10.0.12, "Javascript" Can NOT be defeated, even though many sites tell me that I must enable javascript. Even trying to creat a new section, I am looking at 4 "Forbidden" Scripts.

Will this even be posted?

Ellayn OKosh (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Ellayn OKosh

There is no dependency of JavaScript on Microsoft, Windows, or the PC platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Then why the difficulty with Javascript on OS/2? It is a "PC platform." It is Intel based and only three (3) years old. I just clicked on the FFx [Check for Updates] button and nothing happened, so the browser must be up -to- date, even though its version number is not 40 or larger.

I am open to ideas. Getting a msft computer is off the table due to other causes...

Ellayn OKosh (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Ellayn OKosh

You're using an OS from 1996 (or thereabouts), which predates JavaScript. Firefox ought to run JavaScript from the very beginnings of Firefox, but then on OS/2 anything is possible. I suspect it is OS/2 that's the problem, but that's still far from claiming that nothing other than Microsoft is usable.
I would question (although it's non of my business) why you'd even want to use OS/2, and certainly why you'd want to or expect OS/2 to be a viable web platform. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So, OS/2 existed in 1996? What does that have to do with interopeability? OS/2 v.4.5 may go back to 1996, but eCS 2.2 and the Presentation Manager is new enough.

OS/2, after v1.3, is NOT msft, and my experience would pot a ham sandwich.

Your question is fair. I do not swear like a drunken sailor's parrot when I work on my two OS/2 computers. Behavior.

Ellayn OKosh (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017[edit]

Each HTML tag has several properties to which different types of values can be assigned to get effects but now it is not suggested and instead of that usage of CSS is advised. RajaUmesh (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: HTML elements are documented but Wikipedia is not a how-to and advising CSS v HTML is not going to happen. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Error in Article[edit]

When I searched'HTML'on Google I got First search result of Wikipedia Link. Error - Under HTML in search results there mentioned that the HTML is A "Programming Language", But that's wrong, HTML is a Markup Language not A programming one. Thanks. Ksawami721 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a more specific link for that Google search, or the results it gave you?
The article here says "markup language", which is correct. My google searches give similar results. I'm not seeing the same problem which you're having. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2018[edit]

please i want to edit as i have books on it and have studied it YajatDhavle (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@YajatDhavle: No. There's reason in protecting it. You can put what you want add here and it can be moved there. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

HTML[edit]

This language is complicated to some people It needs a lot of reading and making research @ Maxon001 (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is why I propose using diagrams on the HTML article and the Cascading Style Sheets article. These diagrams:
The HTML5 image is on this article twice. Both of those articles don't have very good images. --Spunionztastic (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2019[edit]

If the <u>...</u> tag is not there please add the underline tag. Hellotheremydude (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Nothing to do. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)