HTML: All Elements From HTML 1 to XHTML 2.0
Published on June 30, 2007 (⻠June 19, 2024), filed under Development (RSS feed for all categories).
The index now covers all HTML specifications with the exception of HTML 5.1. See the notes for the latest major update.
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 arenât stable yet. Itâs intended to provide an overview on HTML development.
Please note that quite a few XHTML 2.0 elements are from the XForms Module. Then, this index may later feature links to elements as well as highlighting of deprecated elements, but I didnât deem this critical for the overview yet. You can leave your vote.
Update (July 3, 2007)
Clarifying notes:
-
The reason to include all elements from HTML was to start with and to provide a comprehensive list of elements of the most influential markup language. The frameset-related elements should be easily locatable (
frame
,frameset
, andnoframes
). -
XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 2.0 both contain Ruby markup, and XHTML 2.0 even XForms elements. Thatâs intended, since you are or will be able to use these elements, too.
-
Apart from HTML 2.0, XFrames is also a candidate for future inclusion. Letâs discuss that in this postâs comments.
Currently I see two other useful updates:
- As mentioned above, links to each elementâs description, and
- a downloadable version of the index (PDF?).
Anything else?
Update (March 27, 2008)
The index has been updated to include HTML 5âs datatemplate
, nest
, and rule
elements. I also added some stats at the end of the table. I then removed references to Rene Saarsooâs annotated version because at the moment, itâs not up-to-date. Last but not least, a new and fresh German version is available, as the previous version lacked earlier updates, including data for HTML 3.2.
Update (March 30, 2014)
The index has undergone another major update:
-
It now links to all elementsâ spec definitions (typically to the WHATWG version, otherwise the last spec defining the element).
-
It also features HTML 2.0.
-
Instead of including only the XHTML 1.0 Strict elements it now lists all the XHTML 1.0 elements (i.e., for Transitional). Thatâs consistent with how the index handles HTML 4.
Updates donât necessarily get announced anymore; I usually maintain the index quietly.
Update (June 26, 2014)
The index now also features HTML â1.â
HTML 5.1 may be added at some point, too. The HTML draft maintained by the WHATWG is the more important specification. If you need to compare HTML 5.1, see the slightly different The Elements of HTML clone by Steve Faulkner. [The situation around the more recent WHATWG and W3C specifications has been clarified in the index itself.]
Update (January 18, 2022)
Because XHTML 2.0 never made it to ârecommendationâ status, that is, never became a standard, I removed it from the index. I plan something similar for HTML 5.2, as itâs an HTML snapshot thatâs likewise irrelevant.
About Me
Iâm Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and Iâm a frontend engineering leader and tech author/publisher. Iâve worked as a technical lead for companies like Google and as an engineering manager for companies like Miro, Iâm a contributor to several web standards, and I write and review books for OâReilly and Frontend Dogma.
I love trying things, not only in web development (and engineering management), but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on meiert.com I share some of my experiences and views. (Please be critical, interpret charitably, and give feedback.)
Comments (Closed)
-
On July 1, 2007, 14:51 CEST, Markus said:
Great work, thank you!!
-
On July 1, 2007, 19:14 CEST, Melianor said:
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.
-
On July 4, 2007, 22:20 CEST, Lars Gunther said:
This may be of interest:
http://keryx.se/wasp/html_elements.pdf -
On July 10, 2007, 23:33 CEST, Jarvklo said:
HmmâŠ
Just a nitpick really, but XHTML 1.1 has been stable for roughly six years now (i.e. since May 31st 2001) đ
The WD at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/ seems to be simply an update (labeled âXHTML 1.1. Second Editionâ) 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 đ -
On July 11, 2007, 10:57 CEST, Jens Oliver Meiert said:
Jarvklo, yes. I wanted to avoid making things more complicated, so I decided to refer to the newest spec or draft. In the case of XHTML 1.1, this means the Second Edition.
-
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 canât wait for PDF file that I can easy copy on my PC.
Greetings from Poland -
On October 24, 2007, 13:10 CEST, Wendy said:
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 October 28, 2007, 21:08 CET, Jens Oliver Meiert said:
Tomasz, Wendy, Lynne, youâre welcome. Iâm indeed working on an updated, extended version.
-
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 18, 2008, 19:13 CET, Jens Oliver Meiert said:
pozycjonowanie, HTML 5. Even though XHTML 2 could be âthe betterâ markup language, HTML 5 will be easier to implement and use.
-
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.
-
On May 11, 2008, 22:37 CEST, Brian Zick said:
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 itâs 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. Weâve 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.
Read More
Maybe of interest to you, too:
- Next: Interview: Me on Blogs and Blogging
- Previous: Arguments for the âstyleâ Attribute
- More under Development
- More from 2007
- Most popular posts
Looking for a way to comment? Comments have been disabled, unfortunately.
Get a good look at web development? Try WebGlossary.infoâand The Web Development Glossary 3K. With explanations and definitions for thousands of terms of web development, web design, and related fields, building on Wikipedia as well as MDN Web Docs. Available at Apple Books, Kobo, Google Play Books, and Leanpub.