Forum:Obsolete and deprecated HTML4 elements

So I was reading the blog post and associated link and just wanted to check that I understood correctly what I was reading, and then ask what to do instead.

So am I right in thinking that, with HTML5, the following codes will not work:

If so, what are the best alternatives?

Thanks, Enodoc (Talk ) (Eno@Fable) 18:38, July 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything above excluding  will not work after the upgrade to HTML5. This table provides the best alternatives for each.



Note that the above declarations can all be fitted into a style attribute on any element or into MediaWiki CSS files. This is perfectly valid:  Hello World! For further CSS references, see w3schools. 18:56, July 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, I thought they'd probably be covered by  I just wasn't sure of the exact codes. -- Enodoc (Talk ) 19:31, July 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, is also equivalent to 120% font-size (which is shorter than 'larger'). Rappy 21:56, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

So will no longer work? -- 70.49.127.65 07:00, July 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the replacement for that to the table.
 * Let me just note that  is incorrect HTML5. It needs to be , without the semicolumn.  19:35, July 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just note that  is incorrect HTML5. It needs to be , without the semicolumn.  19:35, July 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, do not add a semi-column if only one property is added in quotations, as that is incorrect HTML5. On top of that, you can also use  tags for strike-through.  19:55, July 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow is that true? Where is written that? I usually tend to add the semicolon even if there is one propriety or it's the last one...

"End all CSS declarations with a semicolon - ;"

That is what the W3C recommends.

Google recommends it too btw.


 * First of all, that is CSS. CSS is not HTML. Also, try to add a code that matches HTML5 standards with  or another use of style in an HTML tag and see if it validates. I've tried it and it didn't.
 * Whatever is in a style attribute is CSS. I just checked it and the HTML validated. 20:26, July 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this from the previous comment: here's the relevant W3C document. Apologies for the confusion. 20:30, July 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * @TK-999: Wow! You're actually somebody who reads specs, aren't you? :)
 * EDIT: @MateyY: Please take another look at the pages I linked to above. I assure you they do concern CSS.

Seem strange that  is still supported, but not. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 12 Jul 2012 10:37 AM Pacific
 * I think it's for pragmatic reasons. Whatever it's caused by, in HTML 5, it defines side comments, so it has a semantic value. See the relevant specs for details and when not to use. 18:42, July 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * "small" was redefined to mean small-print in HTML5, instead of small size, the result is still the same, the semantic meaning was changed. Still "big" should have been redefined this way as well ("big print", like in adverts) -- 76.65.131.160 06:58, July 13, 2012 (UTC)