HTML elements from HTML 3.2 to XHTML 2.0

Jens Meiert published recently a very cool list of all HTML elements from HTML 3.2 to XHTML 2.0. It is very interesting to visualize the list of elements.

I see a few possible possible improvements on this list.

  • definition of the element for each specification. Not necessary easy to do, because sometimes the definition is quite terse.
  • for HTML 5.0, the list of elements supported by browsers and those accepted for authoring. It’s not exactly the same.
  • a downloadable file with a defined format. (I would have a preference for RDF, but no trouble if it is something else.)

3 thoughts on “HTML elements from HTML 3.2 to XHTML 2.0

  1. Interesting read regarding the change in elements.

    I can’t quite understand the depreciation of acronym and keeping abbr. There are more actual acronyms then abbreviations that need the use of the element. Both are used so infrequently and presumption always seems to be, particularly in technical blogs, that the reader should have knowledge of the acronym that is used. That is a subtle hint to the geeks to start using the acronym element in your blogs, content, etc.

    Acronym is more semantically correct in most uses. But, then based upon the frequency of use of a much needed element and assuming the decision to favor abbr over acronym was frequency of use, hell just toss them both. [sarcasm]

    I am hoping you continue your posts why 95% of the Web is broken, explanations thereof and why it needs repaired.

    I guess eleven year olds [reference to myself] are hard to convince or educate even though we clamour for it.

  2. Note that HTML 5 is an editor’s draft. It is not yet published as a 1st Working Draft. Many issues are not yet solved nor justified. The editors are for now trying to catch up with two years of feedback (mainly mails and weblog posts).

    The wiki that the HTML WG is using helps to summarize the issues and document the need for dropping or keeping the features in HTML 5. Nothing yet has really been dropped.

  3. Looking at the XHTML 2.0 elements, I came to wonder what all of those Ruby-related are doing in the spec? Any thoughts on that?

Comments are closed.