My list of HTML tags! <body> Starting of the available code "seeable by your users." <head> Put your main site scripts and metas here. <meta> New meta. <script> Creates a new script. <title> Title the top (removes the URL and specifies what you choose) --Headers-- <h1> Huge header. <h2> Big header. <h3> Medium-big header. <h4> Medium header. <h5> Small-medium header. <h6> Small header. --Text-- <p> Used for paragraphs. <u> Underlined text <i> Italic text <b> Bold text
0.2: Fixed underline. It seemed the "BBcode:" part messed it all up! Even quotes didn't work! Even the BBcode tag spreaded out of it and it didn't appear in the quote! Sorry
One question: Why are making this? Seems to be quite redundant/useless in this day and age (sites with EVERY html tag are readily available around the web).
Yes, what GMF said. It seems almost useless, seeing as how you have the most basic tags up. If you were to make a post with tags, you could stick to misused tags or even tags that are offered in HTML5 that weren't there before.
It would help, too, if you had the info right. H1-6 are not about size at all. If you're using them that way, you're wrong. h/t ds cheers, gary
The u, i, and b elements have specific, context defined semantic values. If the contextual meanings aren't there, you should use the css text-decoration, font-family and font-weight properties respectively.
Well, technically ... no, which is why other tags are preferred. What most people use the <b> tag for is to make something stand out as important, and that is what the <strong> tag is for. Similarly, the <i> tag is neutral, and <em> should be used for emphasis. A semantic page will hardly ever use u, i, or b.
Yeah, technically yes. These elements were heavily commented early on in the whatwg and html5wg mail lists. Just because people use the elements wrongly most of the time does not make the correct usage wrong. See ยง4.6.17 The i element and the two following sections, b and u. The em and strong elements have their semantic values, but not formal presentation values, though commonly default to italic and bold respectively. The i, b, and u elements derive their meaning from the context, and are italic, bold and underscored.
Indeed. Obviously, the correct usage cannot be wrong. But on a semantic page, they just won't be needed all that often.
True, unless your content deals in ships, people, journals, books, articles, taxonomy, technical terms, foreign phrases and so on. Perhaps the reason you haven't needed them is that you didn't mark your content semantically. g ps. Any kin to (Big) John Gallant, the #1 hero to all of us who dealt with IE6's idiocy? g
For books etc you should use <cite>. I mainly use <i> for foreign phrases or Latin words (via etc) and transliterations of Greek. But most web sites don't have much of that. And no, although I had a bit of communication with John years ago, there's no relation. I know he was a godsend for a lot of folks.
You rang? I was kind of wondering the point of this too, when there are GREAT references like this classic one out there: http://htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/ ... and yeah, if you are using h1..h6 just for what they do for size, you are COMPLETELY missing the entire reason they are numbered. SEMANTICALLY, an H1 is the heading under which ALL sections of the page are... well, subsections. H2's indicate the start of subsections of the H1, H3 indicate the start of a subsection of the H2, and so on and so forth down the line. HR also has a purpose that does NOT mean "draw a line across the screen" -- it means the start of a subsection or change in topic where a heading is unwanted or unwarranted That's why skipping numbers is gibberish, having a low order (high numbered) heading before you even have a H1 is gibberish, pairing together two headings back to back for something like a tagline is idiotic gibberish, and (wag of the finger) HTML 5's halfwit dumbass idiotic SECTION/NAV/HGROUP/sleaze out headings any old way is redundant to existing tags and part of why the steaming pile of manure known as HTML 5 seems designed to undo all the progress STRICT gave us. ... it's also why the whole "modern documents wouldn't use B and I" is also a bunch of idiotic halfwit BS. Gary quite rightly made a perfect example list of their SEMANTIC use. EM and STRONG MEAN 'emphasis' and 'more emphasis', while B and I are for when a section of text WOULD BE bold or italic when properly written (Tip of the hat to Gary: ships, people, journals, books, articles, taxonomy, technical terms, foreign phrases and so on.) Notice that's WOULD BE, not SHOULD/MUST BE!!! Big difference as at the start HTML was (and should remain) device neutral -- that's the whole POINT of using HTML; saying what things ARE, not what they look like! Having endless tags for every usage case would be stupid, so having some generic tags to indicate there's something different about a section of text keeps it simple. You might use I, that doesn't mean the target UA can actually SHOW italic. It could be indicated with a leading and trailing tilde... it could be read in a different voice on a screen reader... It could be shown using a different color in a text mode (which is why HTML didn't originally have a means of setting color and why the FONT tag and COLOR/BGCOLOR attributes are deprecated) There's an example a friend of mine came up with I use whenever the subject crops up showing the proper semantic use of B, I, STRONG and EM. <i>GURPS</i>, <b>Steve Jackson Games'</b> flagship role-playing game, was first released in 1985. Several licensed adaptations of other companies' games exist for the system, such as <i>GURPS Bunnies and Burrows.</i> However, <b>SJ Games</b> has no connection with <b>Wizards of the Coast</b>, producers of the <i>Dungeons and Dragons</i> RPG. <em>No <i>GURPS</i>, content is open-source.</em> <strong>Do not plagiarize <b>SJ Games</b> work!</strong> Take some time to study that example. It's head-exploding goodness. ... and Tim: You shouldn't use CITE unless you are... well... <b>CITING IT!!!</b> -- you wouldn't use CITE if you said "I read <i>Moby Dick</i> last night" -- you should use italic. CITE is for when you CITE it as your source or when quoting it. "As was said in <cite>Moby Dick</cite>, <q>Better to sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunk Christian.</q>". You just mention it's name, you're NOT CITING IT! NOT to be confused with the CITE attribute on Q or BLOCKQUOTE, which is supposed to be a URI. <em>I swear, the way some people interpret the specification they either haven't read it, or just failed to comprehend it...</em>
Untrue. The W3 spec on the subject puts it simply this way: "The cite element represents the cited title of a work; for example, the title of a book mentioned within the main text flow of a document." It then adds, "The cite element now solely represents the cited title of a work; for example, the title of a book, paper, essay, poem, score, song, script, film, TV show, game, sculpture, painting, theater production, play, opera, musical, exhibition, legal case report, or other such work." As you can see, no mention of a quotation whatsoever. Similarly, W3schools, who aren't exactly slouches on the spec, say to use cite just as I said. http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_cite.asp I quote: "The <cite> tag defines the title of a work (e.g. a book, a song, a movie, a TV show, a painting, a sculpture, etc.)." And the example they give is precisely a mention of a title, not a quotation as such.
BWAHAAHA... You're kidding right?!? You're holding up those sleazeball scam artists as an example?!? REALLY?!? HOLY MOTHER OF *****!!! http://www.w3fools.com/ W3Schools is responsible for more broken, half-assed coding practices being treated as acceptable than most any other source! (Well excepting perhaps the fat bloated idiotic BS of HTML, CSS an Scripting frameworks) I've never seen them get a blasted thing right about ANYTHING!!! Of course, if your talking about the steaming pile of non-semantic manure known as HTML 5, for which every developer on the planet is dumber for even having it exist, then you might have it... but again since HTML 5 pisses all over accessibility and semantics by introducing redundancies, making most of the existing tags lose proper meanings (the ONLY exception being HR which finally is clarified properly), it's not exactly something I have any plans to embrace. Hefty part of why I campaign AGAINST HTML5's use, since it's re-introducing the same idiotic bullshit as HTML 3.2. When people call it the future I go "really?!? Looks like the worst of 1997 practices to me!" -- There are only TWO reasons anyone could see legitimate improvements over HTML 4 Strict / XHTML 1.0 Strict -- and that's that they are sleazing out crapplets, or they never pulled their heads out of 1997's backside and until a couple years ago were still sleaze out HTML 3.2 with 4 tranny on it. Now they can slap 5 lip-service around their broken halfwit outdated code and still be 'valid'... Net improvement zero. Which of course, you quoted HTML 5's steaming pile of manure description of the CITE tag so... try this on for size: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#edef-CITE "CITE: Contains a citation or a reference to other sources." http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32#phrase "CITE used for citations or references to other sources" Which of course is when one needs to look up the meaning of a "citation" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citation Since we're not cops handing out parking tickets: 2a : an act of quoting; especially : the citing of a previously settled case at law ... and of course, don't forget the word CITE itself: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite Just because you are saying the name of a book, that doesn't mean your CITING IT!
Um, let me see... that page you mention refers to a citation OR a reference. Even by your own false standard, you're still wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reference http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refer Nice try though. You MIGHT be able to stretch it to "reference" meaning two, an allusion... but that's really stretching it since the word and tag is CITE. Why actually use it for what CITE means and don't use it when you're not citing something? Sure, that makes sense -- NOT! It's same type of dipshit nonsense of calling a single IMG tag or one or two words a "paragraph". (Gary and I go around in circles on that one - comes down to if you want a grammatical paragraph or a typographical one -- and since typography is presentation, it has no malfing business in the markup!). At which point you might as well slap the STYLE attribute on everything, use presentational classes like "red" or "3column"... Which is the same half-assed backwards thinking as the deprecated FONT and CENTER tags, or the endless deprecated/obsolete attributes that have no business on ANY website written after 1997 like ALIGN, BGCOLOR, COLOR, etc. (see why I call CSS frameworks idiotic sleazy BS too!) -- edit -- Actually it's closer to the idiocy of abusing definition lists for anything other than terms and definitions, or the idiocy of nesting lists around obviously tabular data... or the idiocy of putting tables around non-tabular data.
I'm going by what the spec says. And BTW, cite is broader than quote, although if we went by the dictionary definition we wouldn't be using it for naked references. I'll grant you that. But we're not talking about what dictionary definitions are, or should not be. We are talking about the semantics of the tag in the spec.