HOME

Teaching Online Journalism

Tips for HTML5, part 3: Tags we won’t see anymore

Continuing with this series of brief posts about the future of HTML (and what our students will need to know about it), I’m going to mention a few of the HTML tags that will be going away — no longer supported — with HTML5.

For a very attractive and clearly organized “cheat sheet” for HTML5 tags, see this one by Antonio Lupetti.

<acronym>
<applet>
<basefont>
<big>
<center>
<dir>
<font>
<frame>
<frameset>
<isindex>
<noframes>
<s>
<strike>
<tt>
<u>

No big loss — most people have not been using any of those tags for several years already.

Odd that <b> (bold) and <i> (italic) are staying while <u> (underline) is going. CSS is a better choice for all of these. The same goes for <s> (strike-through).

Instead of <tt>, most people would use <pre> or <code> (both of which are staying).

Although all the old frames tags are going, the newer <iframe> is staying. (If you’re not familiar with how to use it, see the W3schools page about the <iframe> tag.)

For related posts, check out the “code” category here in this blog.


Categories: design


6 Comments

  1. I thought the decision to keep <b> and <i> strange at first, too. It turns out there is a rational for it: <b> and <i> have been given semantic value. In other words, they mean more to the computer now than just “bold” or “italic”.

    <b> might now be used to mark up a title for a book, for example and <i> to denote a change of mood, like sarcasm.

    I’m betting a practical reason these tags are getting re-worked is because they are still widely used, even after many years of being deprecated in XHTML specs.

  2. Yeah, I read that (thanks for the link!) — and I think it’s kinda crazy.

    How is “text that is emphasized” different from “text that is stylistically offset from the rest of the text”? I like “meant to be read in an alternate mood,” but really, word editors would be better qualified to sort this out than a bunch of programmers.

    As for your book title example: No, no, no — that is now supposed to be marked up as <cite>!

  3. Megan Taylor says:

    Besides, people use bold and italics to emphasize things for NO REASON sometimes. I’ve seen entire web pages written in italics because SOMEBODY liked the way it looks. Giving style a semantic value when it’s not used in a standard way is just nuts.

  4. Ha, good point, Megan. If they want to emphasize something, they could just use FULL CAPS. :D

  5. don’t stumbleupon and those kinds of link bars use frames? or are they iframes already?

  6. @Mindy whoops, you’re absolutely right about <cite> for titles of works.

    I crossed my wires: in HTML5 the <cite> element should only be used for citing a work (book), not a person, and the <b> element is being pushed as a way of marking up a name for a quote.

    However, this interpretation of the <cite> element isn’t very popular among many authors (myself included) and looks like it might change.

Leave a Reply