Talk:Marquee element

can it be deprecated?
i think if it never has been part of the standard i cannot be deprecated, i mean, the tag font is deprecated in html version 4 because it was part of the html 3 standard but marquee does not appear in the tag list in the w3c website and therefore it cannot be deprecated.

"It is deprecated by the W3C and not advised by them for use in any HTML documents." should be changed into "It's not part of the HTML standard and W3C advises it shouldn't be used in any HTML documents." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.133.82.86 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

mention of not recommended in standard
I thought it might be wise to mention that the marquee tag is not recommended in standardized HTML, since it's a MS extension and is not allowed in (X)HTML strict mode. S4ndp4pper 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could there be some examples of each usage placed either on the article page or this page? Jfing  e  r s  88  23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This element is not allowed in any version of HTML or XHTML that utilizes a DTD nor is it allowed in HTML5. 216.7.225.254 (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

slide
just curious as to why it says slide is depreciated? isn't the whole tag depreciated/nonstandard? or is it the same as scroll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.33.177 (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) this is cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.212 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The needed citation
Do we need a citation for that claim that clicking moving text is hard, in the same fashion as one need to cite that looking into the sun hurts your eyes? &mdash; Northgrove 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning that links are hard to click is even necessary. Also, the whole Attributes section reads like a tutorial. 67.201.57.5 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the "tutorialness" in the sections that I edited, but usability issues are something that should be brought up in the article IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.225.254 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 12 February 2010

Opinions related to functionality and use avoidance need to be removed!
Saying that it has usability problems because it can obscure information is opinion, not fact. For that matter, any page with any kind of dynamic elements that change using onmouseover onmouseout onclick and other interactive commands is by that same opinion inconsistent with the basic nature of a webpage. I say any webpage has any nature that the author finds to be appropriate for the content. Some things ARE appropriate to scroll (and they aren't always text mind you. .I use marquee for very creative manipulations of images on pages). Otherwise the tag would not have been created in the first place if it truly served no purpose. You can't NOT recommend it's use based on an opinion that it's "useless" or "distracting"... This article needs a lot of work IMHO.--98.112.34.95 (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The above statement is absolutely true. Opinions like this have no place in an article. 74.72.199.148 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If there were any recommendations for not using the tag, it would be that the vertical scrolling commands seem to be ignored in many if not all browsers, so the specification is broken anyways. Implementation is otherwise consistent among all the big non IE players (Safari, Chrome, FireFox) anyways, so what's wrong with using it since it DOES work?--98.112.34.95 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The page is both simultaneously hypocritical and argumentative in that on the one hand, it says use of the &lt;marquee&gt; tag should be avoided because it's not part of standard HTML; on the other hand, it might be a standard of CSS soon, so it should be used in CSS. I have a problem with that. If it's not a standard now in either case it shouldn't be used in either case. Are we simply favoring CSS because its evolving and HTML is considered by some dead or is there a more specific reason to ignore the obvious that a coming standard is not a standard for anything until it's announced and in place for sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.34.95 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 January 2010