

The Elements of HTML - bpierre
http://w3c.github.io/elements-of-html/

======
mathias
Please use [http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-
elements/](http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/) instead, as it’s based
on the WHATWG HTML Living Standard rather than W3C’s versioned fork.

~~~
Mithaldu
Two things about that:

1\. What are the differences? I've no idea what the significance of the source
is.

2\. The one you linked is hella unreadable. OP's table is, due to the color
differences, extremely easy to skim, while the one you linked has only very
similar black&white x and checkmark symbols, which require closer inspection
to differentiate.

~~~
Tomte
The "main" development site for HTML5 is the WHATWG. That's where all the
browser implementors convened when they lost faith in the W3C.

The WHATWG doesn't bother with versions, there will be no HTML6, for example.
They just continually update the HTML5 spec. It's a living spec.

The W3C kind of tracks the WHATWG progress and tags certain points with
version numbers (that's where the "5.1" comes from).

Although they do some development on their own, and sometimes both sides
disagree and the specs diverge. At some point WHATWG removed an element that
W3C retained or the other way around.

I have no idea if they still diverge. I just discard the W3C when it comes to
HTML5 and follow WHATWG.

Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network
documents. :-)

~~~
currysausage
_> Well, practically speaking, I follow what the Mozilla Development Network
documents. :-)_

Yeah, I don't quite know when such a table is very useful anyway. What I check
is: (A) [http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/section-index.html#elements-1) (B)
[http://caniuse.com/](http://caniuse.com/)

~~~
couchand
I love [http://caniuse.com](http://caniuse.com) but I wish they had more
detail. For instance, on the XHR page, I'd like to know which browsers support
addEventHandler syntax and which ones require the use of onreadystatechange.

------
KevinMcAlear
No blink tag documentation. I can't use this thing.

~~~
felipesabino
I believe it is because it is a non-standard tag...

------
goblin89
The browser-tag relationship often happens to be more nuanced than just
“supports” or “not supports”. I'd recommend skimming an MDN article in case of
doubt. They also include browser compatibility tables for quick reference and
link to W3C and WHATWG specs.

------
huskyr
Another index that's a lot more usable than this one IMHO is:

[http://developers.whatwg.org/section-
index.html#index](http://developers.whatwg.org/section-index.html#index)

~~~
dtech
It serves a different purpose.

Your link does not show how HTML evolved/what tags are new, the OP link
doesn't show what each element actually _is_.

~~~
meowface
Here's one also by WHATWG, with all the relevant changes:

[http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-
elements/](http://meiert.com/en/indices/html-elements/)

------
chrisBob
What is the point of things like hgroup and rbc that are listed as not
available in any of the versions on the chart?

~~~
alwillis
hgroup was part of the “original” HTML5 spec, but it won’t be part of HTML5
going forward as the living spec grows up a bit. I think it’s still useful:
[http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-
work/multipage/sections.html#the-hgroup-element)

------
marcosdumay
Are frames really deprecated in HTML 5.1? Why does the documentation not tell
that?

~~~
SimeVidas
It's on the list of obsolete, non-conforming features
[http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-
feat...](http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features)

------
felipesabino
Is it me or the <marquee> is missing?

~~~
felipesabino
Oh, may be because is a on-standard...

------
franze
<center> is not HTML5? why? i love <center> & they standardised all other
worst practices of the browser vendors, but this one they missed?

~~~
leephillips
Probably because it's presentational, rather than "semantic". You're supposed
to use CSS to do this.

~~~
dictum
If only they could retrofit <center> as a semantic tag, like they did with
<small>.

~~~
stan_rogers
<center>, though, has no semantic implication. <small> can be taken to mean
"here be subsidiary information not worthy of large print (or in which we wish
to hide critical information we do not with the reader to pay any attention
to)". Centred text (or figures) is, and always has been, a stylistic decision,
and there are already containers that are semantically meaningful to which
that stylistic decision may be applied.

~~~
franze
<center>-al (central) information maybe? but yeah, i understand why they don't
standardise it, but still i prefer a working <center> tag over

    
    
      {
          display: block;
          margin-left: auto;
          margin-right: auto;
      }

~~~
dheera
Agree. And also no valign="middle" in HTML5 <td> elements drives me crazy. I
know I'm "supposed" to use CSS, but CSS should be simple. I shouldn't have to
fight with silly non-intuitive negative margins and nested div hell just to
center something. And then deal with IE's own artistic interpretation of that
div hell.

~~~
chc
You don't need to use negative margins or anything. You just need the flexible
box model ([http://philipwalton.github.io/solved-by-
flexbox/demos/vertic...](http://philipwalton.github.io/solved-by-
flexbox/demos/vertical-centering/)).

