Chapter 3. Markup

Tell us what you think!

We’d love to hear your feedback on the Markup chapter of the 2020 Web Almanac. Leave a comment and tell us your questions, comments, and ideas.

How would you rate this chapter? (5 = best)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Chapter resources :nerd_face:

Here are some additional resources if you’d like to learn more about how this chapter was made:

Found a bug? :bug:

File an issue or submit a pull request on GitHub. Thanks for your help!

Join us! :seedling:

The Web Almanac was built with the support of over 100 contributors from the web community. If you’d like to contribute to the 2021 edition, please fill out our interest form and we’ll reach out to you in mid-2021.

There really are “web pages” with no HTML at all, this page from Mathias Bynens as an example.

I believe there is a logic issue in the article, because of a wrong wording:

71.35% Percent of pages having neither noopener nor noreferrer attributes on target="_blank" links.

and then a statement that seems to contradict:

Yet 71.35% of pages contain links with target="_blank" , without noopener or noreferrer .

does it mean that 71% of pages use links with target blank? or does it mean that 71% of the said links don’t have noopener and noreferrer?

Hi @slk333. The logic seems consistent to me upon reading both sentences. Both are saying that 71% of pages have target=_blank links without the noopener/noreferrer attributes. If it’s still confusing, could you suggest an alternate way to phrase it to make it clearer?

I guess my confusion arised from the fact that it’s a compound percentage:

(1) % of pages with target=_blank (unknown % here)
(2) % of target=_blank that don’t have noopener/noreferrer (unknown % here as well)

(3) % of pages with at least ONE target=_blank with no noopener/noreferrer : 71%

I guess stats (1) and (2) are worthy as well but we only get a compound stats (3)

Very good analysis of changing web trends and very revealing! What these results continue to show is these new Javascript frameworks and HTML5 have not improved the World Wide Web experience that much. Most sites still use basic HTML though many still butcher the markup, developers not bothering to learn HTML. All this has likely just clogged up the pipes. What is critical is we do exactly what you describe…become better HTML designers. We must go BACK to the old way of working which was seeing plain HTML and CSS as the foundation to good web development minus all the scripted icing we now pile on top. After 20 years of working with HTML I can say honestly that none of the “new frameworks”, recommendations, vendors, or working groups have improved HTML, the Web, or furthered good web development practices. HTML5 has not encouraged young developers to follow good practices, either. Its clear we are in the same place we were 20 years ago in kids not learning HTML. I wonder why?

1 Like