HTML: All Elements from HTML 3.2 to XHTML 2.0
Jens O. Meiert, June 30, 2007 / May 30, 2009.
This entry is filed under Web Development.
I just created an continuously updated index of all elements specified by HTML 3.2, HTML 4.01 (covering all document types), XHTML 1.0 Strict, XHTML 1.1, HTML 5, and XHTML 2.0, even though the latter three specifications are not stable yet. It is intended to provide an overview on former and current HTML development.
Please note that quite a few XHTML 2.0 elements are related to the XForms Module. Also, this index might introduce element references (links) as well as highlighting of deprecated elements one day, but this has not been seen critical for an overview yet. You may of course cast your vote, though.
Update (July 3, 2007)
Some notes concerning that index:
- The reason to include all elements from HTML was just to start with and to provide a comprehensive list of elements of the most influential markup language. The Frameset DTD related elements should be easily locatable (
- XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 2.0 both contain Ruby elements, and XHTML 2.0 even XForms elements. That’s intended, right, since you are or will be able to use these elements, too.
- Apart from HTML 2.0, XFrames might also be a candidate for future updates. Let’s discuss that in this post’s comments, presumably.
Currently I see two other neat updates:
- As mentioned above, links to each element’s description, and
- a downloadable version of the index (PDF?).
Update (March 27, 2008)
The index has recently been updated to include HTML 5’s
rule elements as well, I added some stats at the end of the table, and I needed to remove references to Rene Saarsoo’s annotated version which is currently not up-to-date. Last but not least, a new and fresh German version is available, as the former version lacked aforementioned updates and, more importantly, HTML 3.2.
Additional updates will not be announced; I’ll maintain the index without much noise.
Enjoy the most popular posts, possibly including:
Great work, thank you!!
Thank you for this concise summary. Should give a nice overview to start thinking about in which direction all the different options are trying to head.
This may be of interest:
On July 10, 2007, 23:33 CEST, Jarvklo said:
Just a nitpick really, but XHTML 1.1 has been stable for roughly six years now (i.e. since May 31st 2001)
The WD at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ seems to be simply an update (labeled “XHTML 1.1. Second Edition“) that basically adds a new appendix, references to W3C Patent Policies and a statement that enables XHTML 1.1. to be sent as text/html
On July 14, 2007, 1:14 CEST, Tomasz Gorski said:
Jens i want to thank You for making the list I found Your blog from w3 weblog where they write news about the list of HTML elements that You made. I can’t wait for PDF file that I can easy copy on my PC.
Greetings from Poland
Just now found it but thanks for teh great creation. A downloadable version of the index into PDF would be another awsome future update.
On October 28, 2007, 18:47 CET, Lynne said:
This will come in very handy… Thanks!
On November 7, 2007, 20:39 CET, Maya said:
Excellent list Jens. for that kind of list i have truely searched a long time, just a complete list with all elements, very handy.
but the best of it … it is allways up2date. thank you!
On December 26, 2007, 4:35 CET, James Burt said:
Thanks for the article, this have been very useful to me.
On January 15, 2008, 13:20 CET, pozycjonowanie said:
Thanks for all links. What do you think - what will be used in future - xhtml 2.0 or maybe html 5 ?
On January 23, 2008, 8:16 CET, Mandy said:
Interesting, do you have any post regarding HTML 5?
On February 20, 2008, 4:26 CET, Margret said:
This has come in handy many times, Thank
On March 27, 2008, 16:25 CET, voyance said:
It has served, thank you for everything
On March 28, 2008, 13:37 CET, Aukcje said:
This guide is pretty cool and will save a lot of my time. Thank you
On March 28, 2008, 16:51 CET, Opony said:
Thanks for the article, this have been very useful to me. I am insert him on my page.
This is great. I had actually tried to do something similar to this a year or so ago, but I gave up realizing how many elements there is.
On June 6, 2008, 14:11 CEST, luggage said:
Yeah, I agree with the poster who said the HTML 5 is just easier because it’s more stable than XHTML 2. Personally, I wish we would all just settle on one format to make things easier. But, I guess that has the adverse effect of just stifling creativity. We’ve always got to tow the line between complicating things and being over-creative, to being too clinical and thus under-creative. The middle and balanced part is where we need to be.