Talk:HTML tag

Forms
''To use forms, you must have a CGI script in the server. ''

This is not true. PHP, for example, is not CGI. I am using a form right now to enter this message and it is not going to be processed by a CGI script.

Though it would probably be tricky to fully explain this topic of forms while still being friendly to beginner level users, it would be worse to give misinformation. I suggest changing the semantics to convey that CGI is one way but not the only way. Perhaps even saying something more broad like:

To use forms you must have a server-side script, such as Perl CGI or PHP.

I am choosing not to edit the page but rather to just post to the Talk section.


 * Can't forms also submit via email? -- Tarquin 10:01 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
 * In practice, sometimes. Not according to the standard, and the method fails more often than not. E-mail submitted forms are often illegible anyway. Jor 01:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Correct it, if you justify it. It´s better for all ;)

Shorthand notation
Can someone verify that: <li/Foo/ is valid HTML? I doubt it. It does not render in IE6 or Opera711.


 * It is valid HTML, since HTML is an SGML application. It is not recommended HTML however, and it is highly probably it will fail in all web browsers. I've added a note on that to the page. Jor 01:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Only HTML 4
''This page is only appropriate for HTML 4; the phrase 'HTML tag' can equally apply to valid tags in XHTML 1.1, for example, which are quite different to the ones listed here. It might be better to have these definitions in subpages, such as HTML tag/4.01 and so on. I also wonder whether it's redundant to list all the tags here in light of the official W3C specs. -- Hex''

It is too much to be added.
Since it is just like copying the popular HTML tags from 'W3C' standard of HTML, it is not worth to talk too deep. There is also a lot of useful tutorials and references for this topic. Is is a need for so many things?

Rewritten partially
I figure since this page exists I might as well advocate some standards-compliant practices here. Jor 01:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Redirecting to HTML element
I'm redirecting this article to HTML element. Here's why:


 * It seems fairly useless to have an encyclopedia article on a single semantic structure (the HTML tag) that has no meaning outside the context of an HTML element. It would be like having an article on the C++ left parenthesis.
 * The bulk of the current article discusses various shorthand notations involving HTML tags, inherited from SGML. These are more appropriately discussed in the HTML or SGML articles.
 * The remainder of the article's contents is about HTML elements.

I personally don't think there's any useful information here; history will of course be preserved in case anyone wants to vet the prior version for things to add to the HTML element or other articles. -- Wapcaplet 18:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In working on redirecting existing links, I've made a few other significant changes. I did some major cleanup to HTML element itself (which, for ostensibly being an article about how to use HTML, seemed to display a startling lack of the very kind of structure for which HTML is so useful). Anyway, I have also summarily killed the following articles and redirected them to HTML element:


 * ABBR tag
 * ACRONYM tag
 * ADDRESS tag
 * BLOCKQUOTE tag
 * BR tag
 * BODY tag
 * HEAD tag
 * TITLE tag

If anyone has a problem with this, please feel free to bring it up. Those articles did add slightly more information than the current version of the HTML element article has for each element (namely, the attributes available for each) but I couldn't foresee any of them turning into anything more than what they already were. It appears to me that this was someone's aborted attempt at creating articles for all the HTML tags, abandoned after getting through the first eight. -- Wapcaplet 20:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)