I checked syntax, and to my surprise, the
tag wasn’t even accepted! That was in HTML 4.01, so I switched
to see if it was allowed there. And it was. Is
<time … that new? It seems there has
been quite some controversy and unclarity about it:
There was also a familiar error message, which vanished when
switching from HTML 4.01 to HTML5: that about
I always ignored those errors, because I feel like I really
target. Of course it has the smell of frames
to it, and long ago, I did use it for that. But the frames are
I often offer hyperlinks
that enable the reader to find more background info, IF they
want to read it, but with the freedom to ignore it and read on
in the linking document.
Even if the link is clicked, I want the original text to remain
available in its own browser tab. The new text should not appear
in a new tab every time it’s clicked, as is the case when specifying
target=_blank. Instead, I use consistent and unique
labels per site or type of site, like Wikipedia, Wiktionary,
Youtube, Stackoverflow, and my own rudhar.com.
I remember having considered a switch to what I thought was
HTML5, but I postponed or rejected it because then I would have
to replace any
<br> still used (there aren’t
I find that ugly nonsense. The semantics of a line break make it
obvious that the tag just occurs, and does not need to be closed.
Indicating that closure may be convenient for a parser builder,
but it is useless and confusing for the coder and reader, and
that should take precedence.
Also, I thought HTML5 was case-sensitive. I used to use a lot of uppercase tags, most of which I later replaced by lowercase when I preferred that for newer coding. But some is still left. Extra work.
And I would have to close all paragraphs by a
</p> before the new
I often leave that implicit: paragraphs cannot be nested, so
when a new one starts, it is obvious that the previous one
has ended, even without explicitly tagging that end.
In hindsight, I must have confused HTML5 with XHTML. In HTML5,
<br> is fine,
be closed but doesn’t need to, and
<p> are equivalent. Exactly the way
I like it.
A change I also find mildly amusing, is that an explicit
<style> in the HTML
longer requires a type. The earlier validator insisted on it,
But now they finally admit that this is superfluous, because what else than CSS text could a style be specified in? A Word document? A JPG image? An MP3 sound clip? Less is more, and small is beautiful. KISS.
The document header is much simpler now too. We used to have things like:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
and now it can be replaced by the much neater:
But then, why include a
doctype in the first place?
html, suggesting HTML5 will be the holy
grail forever and there will never be a HTML6. And I like that;
why change or replace things every few years if they work fine?
html and that’s what the
first tag says too, again. So there is no need for a
and we’re back in the olden days of HTML 3.2, or 2.0, or whatever
it was when I started coding pages in 1997 or so, before
2002 anyway, when a HTML document started
<html> and ended with
and that was it. Clean, clear and simple.
But in HTML5, omitting the
doctype is not allowed.
Anyway, I’m gonna change all my pages to HTML5 soon, gradually or maybe automated and abruptly. It’s better than HTML 4.01, and largely compatible.