HTML: All Elements From HTML 1 to XHTML 2.0

Published on June 30, 2007 (↻ June 19, 2024), filed under (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 aren’t stable yet. It’s 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 didn’t deem this critical for the overview yet. You can leave your vote.

Update (July 3, 2007)

Clarifying notes:

Currently I see two other useful updates:

Anything else?

Update (March 27, 2008)

The index has been updated to include HTML 5’s datatemplate, nest, and rule elements. I also added some stats at the end of the table. I then removed references to Rene Saarsoo’s annotated version because at the moment, it’s 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:

  1. It now links to all elements’ spec definitions (typically to the WHATWG version, otherwise the last spec defining the element).

  2. It also features HTML 2.0.

  3. Instead of including only the XHTML 1.0 Strict elements it now lists all the XHTML 1.0 elements (i.e., for Transitional). That’s consistent with how the index handles HTML 4.

Updates don’t necessarily get announced anymore; I usually maintain the index quietly.

Update (June 26, 2014)

The index now also features HTML “1.”

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 “recommendation” status, that is, never became a standard, I removed it from the index. I plan something similar for HTML 5.2, as it’s an HTML snapshot that’s likewise irrelevant.

Was this useful or interesting? Share (toot) this post, or support my work by buying one of my books (they’re affordable, and many receive updates). Thanks!

About Me

Jens Oliver Meiert, on September 30, 2021.

I’m Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and I’m a frontend engineering leader and tech author/publisher. I’ve worked as a technical lead for companies like Google and as an engineering manager for companies like Miro, I’m close to W3C and WHATWG, and I write and review books for O’Reilly and Frontend Dogma.

I love trying things, not only in web development (and engineering management), but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on I share some of my views and experiences.

If you want to do me a favor, interpret charitably (I speak three languages, and they can collide), yet be critical and give feedback for me to learn and improve. Thank you!

Comments (Closed)

  1. On July 1, 2007, 14:51 CEST, Markus said:

    Great work, thank you!!

  2. 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.

  3. On July 4, 2007, 22:20 CEST, Lars Gunther said:

    This may be of interest:

  4. 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 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 😉

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. On October 28, 2007, 18:47 CET, Lynne said:

    This will come in very handy… Thanks!

  9. On October 28, 2007, 21:08 CET, Jens Oliver Meiert said:

    Tomasz, Wendy, Lynne, you’re welcome. I’m indeed working on an updated, extended version.

  10. 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!

  11. On December 26, 2007, 4:35 CET, James Burt said:

    Thanks for the article, this have been very useful to me.

  12. 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 ?

  13. On January 18, 2008, 19:13 CET, Jens Oliver Meiert said:

    pozycjonowanie, HTML 5. Even though XHTML 2 could be “the better” markup language, HTML 5 will be easier to implement and use.

  14. On January 23, 2008, 8:16 CET, Mandy said:

    Interesting, do you have any post regarding HTML 5?

  15. On February 20, 2008, 4:26 CET, Margret said:

    This has come in handy many times, Thank

  16. On March 27, 2008, 16:25 CET, voyance said:

    It has served, thank you for everything

  17. On March 28, 2008, 13:37 CET, Aukcje said:

    This guide is pretty cool and will save a lot of my time. Thank you

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.