Talk:HTML/Archive 1

message: How do I use HTML in WikiPedia when I edit/create entries?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flarn2005 (talk • contribs)  2 April 2005
To add HTML in Wikipedia, do what you would do if you were editing a web page in Notepad. This sentence is bold; if you click "edit" you can see how it was done. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 02:08, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
:At whom is this comment aimed? Anyone who has ever editted a web page in Notepad will be well aware how to add it anywhere; HTML is HTML. The people for whom simplified markups such as that used by this wiki were invented are the 90% or more of Internet users who have never looked at the source of a page in their life. If for some reason they do, they see "all these funny pointy brackets" and go "where's all my actual text hiding"; this is also why WYSIWYG editting is so popular. This is exactly why "unrestricted" HTML is not the basic markup for MediaWiki pages; I am strongly of the opinion that MediaWiki does not "restrict HTML", but rather borrows selectively from HTML in defining its own, completely unrelated, syntax. Arguably, even MediaWiki's more advanced syntax can be a little daunting to the unitiated, but at least most of it is designed to be understood by humans, rather than computers.
:Personally, I would not be at all sad to see  (etc), ,  and various other tags removed from the wiki syntax, as it's confusing to have multiple ways to produce the same result, and especially the heading tags have all sorts of weird side-effects.
:(on a historical note  used to produce  rather than , but this decision was later reversed from experience of how the markup was actually used) - IMSoP 00:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think we should go the other way, wiki markup is a mess where virtually anything could be misinterpreted as markup and where some combinations are probablly rendered impossible by the order the parser does things in. A clean tag based format would be much easier to extend without breaking anything. Plugwash 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: See meta:Alternative parsers (including a Wiki2XML which may yet become the standard parser), and please stop using this page for discussion not related to Wikipedia's article on HTML. [I'm going to resist getting drawn back in, on principle; fascinating though it is, it belongs elsewhere. - IMSoP 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HTML in [[Wikipedia]]

message: yes some of the secuirty issues are ie specific but others (especially involving scripting) are pretty much by design of the scripting systems used in html. Furthermore even IE specific issues ARE of concern to anyone involved with putting user supplied content into html pages. Plugwash 12:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: there is a security risk involved in embedding media within a web page.  However, a browser can render HTML validly by replacing all media with a black rectangle, thus it is not a problem with HTML itself.  This does not have any bearing on the discussion of including HTML in Wikipedia, above. --Sean κ. ⇔ 19:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nonetheless they are issues that affect all real world use of html. Should we ignore them completely? should we move them to a separate article and put it in see-also? or what? Plugwash 01:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look around.  Most likely, they should be under "Security risks of web browsing" or "Security risks of using Internet Explorer/Firefox/whatever".  --Sean κ. ⇔ 01:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed security risks 

message: Does anyone know why HTML is not included in the template that lists major programing languages?...
Since it's the language that the Web was originally built with it seems as major as most the others on that list.  PHP is included on that list, but it probably would never have existed were it not for HTML.
--Blackcats 03:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The markup Important point means "Emphasis on Important point".  How the computer interprets this is dependent on the programming.  The word "instructions" in the line you cited has a very specific meaning, not the one you are thinking of.  The phrases "My document has font size 12pt" and "Make sure to underline links" do not suggest the direct action a computer will take, even though one could think of them as "instructions".  If you read the entire article at Programming language, you will see how they differ from Markup languages.--Sean κ. ⇔ 18:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Programming languages

message: I reverted the edit by , since it referred to Notepad (completely unrelated), talked of things in tag level (should talk of enclosing things in elements, not surrounding them with tags), did not mention DTD, and <HTML> by itself was a bit of trivia. However, that got me thinking if there should be a section about the typical structure of a HTML document (<html>, <head>, <body> and all)? Aapo Laitinen 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit by 24.154.6.44 

message: Where would I go from here to find out about indexed HTML within wikipedia? HTMLDOC says it makes such a file, but documentation is scarce. Hackwrench 16:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You most likely mean a HTML file with a Table of Contents, since it seems that's what HTMLDOC is used for--generating PDF / HTML files with indexed headings / pages. -- Parasti 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indexed HTML 

message: I don't disagree with including a picture in the lead section of the article, but the current picture not only shows JavaScript but focuses on it. Aapo Laitinen 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro picture 

message: Somebody at 195.195.87.138 just copied and pasted this entire page into the article.  I can't see any appropriate licensing terms on that page, and the user hasn't identified themselves as being from WebThing, so I'm reverting it as it's probably copyright infringement.  --Bogtha 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying from WebThing 

message: I just excised this addition:
Although many education facilities in the UK are still teaching 1990's web design and will not accept this fact. One example is Billy Taggart from Glasgow, the man has been teaching the same stale HTML from 3 years ago. W3C recommends XHTML, remember that Billy, not Dreamweaver.
Someone seriously abusing Wikipedia there.--SergeiRichard 00:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse