Forums → Game Programming →

Why is <body vlink="#006699"> still working in HTML5

Subscribe to Why is <body vlink="#006699"> still working in HTML5 9 posts

Sign in to reply

Dec 11, 2012 4:25am
avatar for AMD_Paulius_J AMD_Paulius_J 110 posts
Flag Post

Documentation says that HTML5 does not support vlink, alink, bgcolor and other parameters, instead people should use CSS, but why is it still working fine? I’m declaring HTML5 doctype correctly:

<!DOCTYPE html>

Maybe my browser is not actually reading HTML5?
 
Dec 11, 2012 6:24am
avatar for Draco18s Draco18s 6879 posts
Flag Post

Your browser is lazy and is parsing those parameters anyway.
 
Dec 11, 2012 11:46am
avatar for skyboy skyboy 6261 posts
Flag Post

surprise, the browser maintains backwards compatibility with other versions of HTML. also, your doctype isn’t for HTML5
 
Dec 11, 2012 12:43pm
avatar for Draco18s Draco18s 6879 posts
Flag Post
Originally posted by skyboy:

also, your doctype isn’t for HTML5

Actually, yes it is
 
Dec 11, 2012 1:05pm
avatar for skyboy skyboy 6261 posts
Flag Post

Originally posted by Draco18s:

Actually, yes it is

so they chose a doctype that can be parsed like an unfinished HTML4 doctype, leaving the browser to parse the page as HTML4 quirks mode
 
Dec 11, 2012 1:42pm
avatar for Draco18s Draco18s 6879 posts
Flag Post
Originally posted by skyboy:

Originally posted by Draco18s:

Actually, yes it is

so they chose a doctype that can be parsed like an unfinished HTML4 doctype, leaving the browser to parse the page as HTML4 quirks mode

Yep.
 
Dec 11, 2012 3:32pm
avatar for EndlessSporadic EndlessSporadic 10478 posts
Flag Post

HTML5 can still parse HTML4 parameters, but they will not be displayed for you in auto-fill. Keep in mind that if HTML5 cannot find out what something is, it will fall back to previous versions of HTML to parse it. That doesn’t mean you should keep using it though.

vlink in HTML has been replaced with a:visited in CSS ( a:visited { color: red; } ).
alink in HTML has been removed. Use ( a { color: red; } ).
bgcolor has been replaced with background-color or fill.
 
Dec 11, 2012 5:46pm
avatar for BobTheCoolGuy BobTheCoolGuy 3773 posts
Flag Post
Originally posted by skyboy:

Originally posted by Draco18s:

Actually, yes it is

so they chose a doctype that can be parsed like an unfinished HTML4 doctype, leaving the browser to parse the page as HTML4 quirks mode

Yeah – I like the idea of a simple doctype, but wouldn’t have

<!DOCTYPE html5>

have worked just as well? Maybe I’m just missing some train of thought, don’t know.
 
Dec 11, 2012 10:34pm
avatar for AMD_Paulius_J AMD_Paulius_J 110 posts
Flag Post

Thanks to everyone for info, it’s good to know even such a simple things.

In my opinion

<!DOCTYPE html5>

Would be better, but they probably have a reason for that. And it worked because html is so flexible you can write there anything and it will still work in most cases, sometimes I even feel bad on how liberal html is.

Sign in to reply