1.1. The Web's Fall from Grace
Back in the dimly remembered, early years of the Web (19901993), HTML was a fairly lean language. It was composed almost entirely of structural elements that were useful for describing things like paragraphs, hyperlinks, lists, and headings. It had nothing even remotely approaching tables, frames, or the complex markup we assume is necessary to create web pages. HTML was originally intended to be a structural markup language, used to describe the various parts of a document; very little was said about how those parts should be displayed. The language wasn't concerned with appearanceit was just a clean little markup scheme.
Then came Mosaic.
Suddenly, the power of the World Wide Web was obvious to almost anyone who spent more than 10 minutes playing with it. Jumping from one document to another was no more difficult than pointing the cursor at a specially colored bit of text, or even an image, and clicking the mouse. Even better, text and images could be displayed together, and all you needed to create a page was a plain-text editor. It was free, it was open, and it was cool.
Web sites began to spring up everywhere. There were personal journals, university sites, corporate sites, and more. As the number of sites increased, so did the demand for new HTML elements that would each perform a specific function. Authors started demanding that they be able to make text boldfaced or italicized.
At the time, HTML wasn't equipped to handle those sorts of desires. You could declare a bit of text to be emphasized, but that wasn't necessarily the same as being italicizedit could be boldfaced instead, or even normal text with a different color, depending on the user's browser and preferences. There was nothing to ensure that what the author created was what the reader would see.
As a result of these pressures, markup elements like <FONT> and <BIG> started to creep into the language. Suddenly, a structural language started to become presentational.
1.1.1. What a Mess
Years later, we have inherited the problems of this haphazard process. Large parts of HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.0, for example, were devoted to presentational considerations. The ability to color and size text through the font element, to apply background colors and images to documents and tables, to use table attributes (such as cellspacing), and to make text blink on and off are all the legacy of the original cries for "more control!"
For an example of the mess in action, take a quick glance at almost any corporate web site's markup. The sheer amount of markup in comparison to actual useful information is astonishing. Even worse, for most sites, the markup is almost entirely comprised of tables and font elements, neither of which conveys any real semantic meaning as to what's being presented. From a structural standpoint, these pages are little better than random strings of letters.
For example, let's assume that for page titles, an author uses font elements instead of heading elements like H1:
<font size="+3" face="Helvetica" color="red">Page Title</font>
Structurally speaking, the font tag has no meaning. This makes the document far less useful. What good is a font tag to a speech-synthesis browser, for example? If an author uses heading elements instead of font elements, though, the speaking browser can use a certain speaking style to read the text. With the font tag, the browser has no way to know that the text is any different from other text.
Why do authors run roughshod over structure and meaning this way? Because they want readers to see the page as they designed it. To use structural HTML markup is to give up a lot of control over a page's appearance, and it certainly doesn't allow for the kind of densely packed page designs that have become so popular over the years. But consider the following problems with such an approach:
Granted, a fully structured document is a little plain. Due to that one single fact, a hundred arguments in favor of structural markup won't sway a marketing department from using the type of HTML that was so prevalent at the end of the 20th century, and which persists even today. What we need is a way to combine structural markup with attractive page presentation.