Try Tuts+ Premium, Get Cash Back!

10 Rare HTML Tags You Really Should Know

Web developers these days are often expected to know and work in multiple languages. As a result, it’s tricky to learn everything a language has to offer and easy to find yourself not utilizing the full potential of some more specialized but very useful tags.

Unfortunately we haven’t been tapping into the full potential of these more obscure HTML tags as of late. But it’s never too late to get back into the game and start writing code that taps into the power of some under-used tags.

Here are ten of some of the most underused and misunderstood tags in HTML. While they might be less familiar, they’re still quite useful in certain situations.

1. <cite>

All of us will be familiar with the <blockquote> tag, but did you know about <blockquote>’s little brother <cite>? <cite> allows you to define the text inside of the element as a reference. Typically the browser will render the text inside of the <cite> tag in italics, but this can be changed with a touch of CSS.

The <cite> tag is really useful for citing bibliographic and other site references. Here’s an example of how to use the cite tag in a paragraph:

David Allen’s breakthrough organization book Getting Things Done has taken the web by storm.

2. <optgroup>

The <optgroup> tag is a great way to add a little definition between groups of options inside a select box. If you needed to group movie listings by time, for example, then it would look like this:


Live demo:

This allows the select list to visually separate the movie listings.

3. <acronym>

The <acronym> tag is a way to define or further explain a group of words. When you hover over text that has the <acronym> tag used, a box appears below with the text from the title tag. For example:

The microblogging site  Twitter has recently struggled with downtimes.

Live demo:

SEO is full of trickery and magic.

4. <address>

The <address> tag is quite an obscure little tag, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful! As the name implies, <address> allows you to semantically markup addresses in HTML. The nifty little tag will also italicize all of the data within the brackets, though the style can easily be changed through simple CSS.

Glen Stansberry 1234 Web Dev Lane Anywhere, USA

5. <ins> and <del>

If you’re wanting to display editing revisions with with markup, <ins> and <del> are just the ticket. Like the name implies, <ins> highlights what’s been added to the document with an underline, and <del> shows what’s been taken out with a strikethrough.

John likes LOVES his new iPod.

Live demo:

John likes LOVES his new iPod.

6. <label>

Form elements seem the easiest to forget when marking up a document. Of the form elements, one of the most forgotten is the <label> tag. Not only is it a quick way to note the label’s text, the <label> tag can also pass a “for” attribute to specify which element is to be given the label. Not only are these <label> tags great for styling, they also allow you to make the caption clickable for the associated element.


7. <fieldset>

Fieldset is a nifty little attribute that you can add to your forms to logically group form elements. Once applied the <fieldset> tag draws a box around the elements within the fieldset. Bonus points for adding a <label> tag within the fieldset to define the title of the group.

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? Yes No

Live demo:

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

Yes

No

8. <abbr>

The <abbr> tag is much akin to the <acronym> tag, except the <abbr> tag is only used to define abbreviated words. Just like <acronym>, you define a title within the tag. When a visitor hovers over the abbreviated text, the full definition appears below. The <abbr> tag is rarely used, but the benefits are many for screen readers, spellcheckers and search engines.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club is my favorite album.

Live demo:

Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club is my favorite album.

9. rel

Rel can be an insanely useful attribute, as any HTML element can have a rel applied to it. It’s helpful for passing extra variables that aren’t otherwise specified. This is helpful when using Javascript with your HTML. If you have a link that you want to edit inline, you might add:

This link is editable

The Javascript might be looking for a link with the rel attribute “clickable”, and it knows to apply some Ajax and allow it to be edited inline. This is one of many techniques you can use with the rel attribute, as the possibilities are endless.

10. <wbr>

The <wbr> tag is an incredibly obscure tag. To be honest, I doubt many of you have come into contact with the tag, as it’s hardly ever used. (Truthfully, I hadn’t seen the tag before I started researching this article.) Essentially, the tag allows you to specify a place where you think a line break might be useful, but only if needed. This tag is unique as it relies on the discretion of the browser to insert the linebreak, if needed. It’s perfect for creating layouts that you want to avoid having horizontal scrollbars.

If you were wanting to achieve the same effect but without using the <wbr> tag, you could also try or ­­. It should be noted that none of these tags have full support across all browsers. To see which browsers support the tags check out this article by Quirksmode.

How do you say Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?

Note: Want to add some source code? Type <pre><code> before it and </code></pre> after it. Find out more
  • darklord

    Woooow i’m the first one unbelievable ,
    nice tuts by the way some of those tags i see them for the first time in this tut.
    does anyone knows if this site is going to post any .net tut ??

    • http://laranzjoe.blogspot.com lawrence77

      what is special in ”10” Mr.Glen Stansberry
      Out of your 25 tutorials in PSDTUTS u wrote 20 in the starts with 10!

      Anyway all ur tuts/articles are fine!
      I except Ajax+c#.net+Asp.net from you! :)
      thanks!
      Lawrence.J

    • nixxy

      .net is gross

      • Valamas

        .net is grouse

      • http://laranzjoe.blogspot.com Lawrence77

        no its elegant!

      • kw

        you probably know nothing about .net.

      • Erwin

        .net is great.
        I program (my job not a hobby) in Java and in c#.net. If i would have to choose between the two then .net would definatly win.

      • http://pagesofinterest.net/blog/ Mike

        .Net sucks +1

      • http://www.waynejohn.com Wayne John

        If you say .net sucks, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. .Net is perhaps the best language out there when compared to Java, which tends to be clunky, and you can’t even compare it to PHP since PHP is more like classic ASP and can lead to some serious spaghetti code.

        All languages have their benefits and downfalls.

  • Devin

    rel is not rearly used

    • Sebastian

      Have to agree with you there…
      I have almost never seen a site without <link rel=”stylesheet” ………..

    • aljuk

      “Rearly”?

      I use rel on every site I build, as in rel=”ext” to define a link as being to an external website. Javascript picks this up and opens the link in a new window (rather than using target=”_blank” which is depricated in Strict).

      Back to web design “skool” for you I guess…

      • http://www.jonnyhaynes.com Jonny Haynes

        Or maybe back to the web design school for you.

        Good usability and accessibility practices show that you should never force the user to open a new tab/window. V bad.

        Leave it to the user to decide themselves.

      • http://jboxer.com/ Jake Boxer

        @Jonny Haynes
        This is true most of the time, but there are plenty of occasions where you definitely want to force the user to open a new tab/window.

        The most common one is when you have a site targeted at less computer-savvy users and you have a link that, if opened in the same window, would interrupt a set of steps they’re going through.

        For example, I maintain a website where people can post and search for apartments (much like Craigslist). The apartment posting process has 7 steps, each on its own page. Many elderly folks with extra rooms in their house post apartments here, and many of them aren’t great with computers, so on each page, we have a link to a video tutorial that explains how to fill out the current page.

        If a user clicked the video tutorial link on step 4 of 7, and it opened in the same page, they would need to navigate back to their half-complete listing after watching the tutorial. While this would obviously be no problem for you or me, it can be very confusing for someone who is unfamiliar with computers.

        Instead, we open the video in a new window, and include text saying “When you’re done watching this tutorial, close this window to return to your listing.” If we didn’t force open a new window, many non-computer-savvy users (the very people we’re trying to help with usability/accessibility practices in the first place) would end up much more confused than they do now.

      • Jonah

        “depricated”?

      • http://www.jonnyhaynes.com Jonny Haynes

        Why not just use something like ‘Lightbox’ or ‘Highslide’ (with a non-javascript fall back) with an iframe inside it? That way, they never have to leave your site.

        We’ve done that on numerous occasions for things you’ve already mentioned.

      • Joe Wiggles

        I work at a newspaper site and we always use “target=”_new” for our advertisements. We’ve found that many times when a user clicks off of our site to another they will lose track of where they were originally and go on to other things. Our strategy is to keep our site in the background or on another tab so that hopefully when the user closes this new window, our site will still be easily available. No complaints so far.

      • Whatever

        Oh wow, you complain about spelling.

        How very nice of you.

        Thumbs down.

      • http://twitter.com/michaelstrelan Michael

        @Joe Wiggles

        1. Correct syntax is target=”_blank” not target=”_new”
        2. Target attribute is deprecated in XHTML strict, so rel=”external” with a bit of javascript is the preferred way to do this now
        3. External links in new windows is so 10 years ago … I hate when websites open up heaps of tabs on my computer. Having said that I use ad blocker anyway and don’t want to click on your crappy ads.

      • http://www.sokobanja.net Soko Banja

        Thanks, I had problems with my site and this helped me, once again thank you very much

    • r953

      rel is an attribute not a tag…

    • Tokyoish

      anyway, “rel” is not tag. It’s attribute.

  • http://www.impressivewebs.com Louis

    Informative post, however wouldn’t it be more appropriate if the examples were in XHTML? I don’t think anyone that codes uppercase HTML without quotes around attributes is going to use any of these tags.

    • Snookerman

      Why XHTML? IE doesn’t support XHTML.

      • Meshach

        What are you talking about? IE does support XHTML.

      • william

        IE DOES SUPPORT XHTML if the XHTML is CODED in HTML COMPATIBLE MODE and you use the right DTS example

        Why?, because it will be close to the new standards, and xhtml is an step in the right direction you will have the content easier to update and migrate

      • http://www.DanMesa.com Dan

        IE doesn’t support the internet.

      • Snookerman

        IE doesn’t support XHTML (not even IE8) so what you do is pass the XHTML code as HTML (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#text-html) and all browsers will parse the page as invalid HTML with a bunch of unnecessary forward slashes and unclosed tags, a so called “tag soup”. XHTML is good, but only if you use it in the right way with the mediatype “application/xhtml+xml” (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#application-xhtml-xml) in which case IE users will now see the page but will be asked to download it. The best solution at the moment is to use HTML4strict. Nobody stops you from using lowercase tags and quotes around attributes, it’s actually good practice (http://www.webdevout.net/test?html4-good-practice).

        If you want to learn more, read this article:
        http://www.webdevout.net/articles/beware-of-xhtml
        It’s long, but it’s worth the time since most people don’t really understand what doctype they are using.

      • http://www.jonnyhaynes.com Jonny Haynes

        @Dan

        “IE doesn’t support the internet.”

        Genius, I’m going to use that today in a meeting! ha ha!

    • Oscar

      @Dan

      “IE doesn’t support the internet.”

      Love it

      • http://roses.so-pink.org/wp Evie

        @Dan

        “IE doesn’t support the internet.” — :D

        One of those jokes I’d love to be able to drop into a conversation somewhere, but really couldn’t without seeming like a complete geek ;)

  • Ethan

    Very cool! Haven’t heard of half of these.

  • http://www.impendulo.net Joost

    I thought fieldset is required for forms when using the xhtml strict doctype? It should be in your forms if you use xhtml.

    Actually, I always use fieldset, legend and labels for my forms.
    And another one cool (rare?) tag I love for forms is button instead of input type=”submit”. It’s so much easier to style with css and allows icons in the buttons. It validates, and I have yet to find problems with it. But w3c doesn’t recommend using it.

    Didn’t know about optgroup and wbr though, thanks!

    • Chris Simpson

      I agree that the button tag is great, and especially to style, the trouble is that different browsers (IE grrrr) interpret it differently if its placed in an HTML form.

    • http://www.contempographicdesign.com Chris Robinson

      you’re correct if you want your XHTML 1.0 Strict to validate you have to use fieldset with your forms

    • Andy

      is mostly fine, until you have a form with multiple submit buttons.
      IE6 only recognises the value of the last submit button in your form.
      So, if you have a Save button, followed by a Cancel button, all buttons will take on the value of Cancel.

    • sam

      kind of off topic, but im surprised that nettuts itself doesnt validate.

  • http://www.dataviking.com Angel

    very very cool!

  • http://paularmstrongdesigns.com Paul Armstrong

    It’s most unfortunate that you mis-used half of the items in this post.

    cite should be used when you’re actually _citing_ something from a source, like if you’re using a blockquote or q element.

    optgroup should contain a set of options, not be closed before the options. Your “live demo” doesn’t show any visual difference because of your improper usage.

    acronym is used for acronyms. Defining acronym, “a word formed from the initial letters of the several words in the name”… The usage in your example just hurts my brain.

    According the HTML specs, address is used to denote the address of the page creator: “The ADDRESS element may be used by authors to supply contact information for a document or a major part of a document such as a form. This element often appears at the beginning or end of a document.” See: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#h-7.5.6

    Pretty sad that you didn’t use labels in your fieldset example.

    The abbr example is a better example of an acronym. abbr, or Abbreviation is a “shortened form of a word” like ‘management’ -> ‘mgmt’.

    rel should be used to describe the relationship of the text to the current tag. W3C says, “This attribute describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor specified by the href attribute. The value of this attribute is a space-separated list of link types.”

    wbr is not in any HTML spec. It is a non-standard tag that was added by Netscape, and later dropped around Netscape 4 or 5.

    I’m incredibly disappointed by the inaccuracies that you’re giving people who might not know better.

    • http://www.eyeheartzombies.com Kenneth

      I was just about to make all the same points.

    • Newton

      seriously, way to go and set web development back to the 90s with this tutorial. I’m kind of appalled at Net Tuts for allowing this content to go up. Makes me wonder what other crap they’ve let slip through their hands.

    • Snookerman

      Thanks, you have saved me a lot of typing, I was just about to start writing why my brain melted while trying to go through this article.
      The only thing I would add is that rel is not a tag.

      I think it’s really weird that nettuts accepts articles like this one which was obviously just written for money, not for teaching people. Shame on you glen.

      • Will

        I concur.

        Glen’s articles are unfortunately usually of poor quality. I tend to browse through the comments to find there is always someone like Paul serving out cold hard facts.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for posting the clarifying information. I can’t find anything to confirm that “rel” is a valid attribute on ALL html elements. I only see it applied to A elements.

      • Anonymous

        It is also valid in LINK elements.

    • http://mcarthurgfx.com Sean McArthur

      You mostly corrected everything I would have.

      But c’mon, your example of what a real abbr is (management => mgmt) is exactly how he used it! Sergeant => Sgt. His use of the abbr tag works just fine.

      But the acronym usage (Twitter??) is totally wrong. It only would have been correct if Twitter stood for something.

      It appears though, that acronym and abbr were listed for the effect of providing a title on hover… A title on any element at all will provide the hover tool tip. A better use for the Twitter case would be <span title=”Found in 2006″>Twitter

      • http://paularmstrongdesigns.com Paul Armstrong

        Sean: The article was corrected for abbreviation and optgroup after my comment was made.

        I really try not to be harsh when dishing out the facts, but I expected a little error checking by a professional before something like this would be posted.

    • http://anti-aol.livejournal.com Marah Marie

      Agreed on author’s unneeded mention of wbr. It’s messing up pages on one blog of mine big-time because it’s automatically inserted by the CMS (there is no end-user control over it unless I go and rewrite some Perl just to make myself happy). It’s inserted to break up long URLs and it does NOT validate as XHTML Transitional, so I imagine it doesn’t validate in Strict, either. My frustration with it is endless.

    • B Shelton

      The radio tags in example 7 are not coded correctly; they should have the same name so that only ONE option at a time can be selected.

      Furthermore, the FIELDSET example does not show a border (like it may by default) because there is a CSS reset on this page (e.g. borders are set to 0).

    • http://www.harlanlewis.com Harlan Lewis

      Agreed. Honestly, this article should be pulled or significantly edited – right now it’s simply too inaccurate to be of use.

      And on WBR, as Paul mentioned it’s a non-standard, deprecated tag (so shouldn’t be in this list at all), but on top of that it’s used wrong – WBR would only go inside a NOBR tag, which is deprecated as well (replaced by CSS whitespace: nowrap).

      Points for encouraging use of things like ABBR, but mistakes are just stacked on mistakes in this article.

      • http://www.harlanlewis.com Harlan Lewis

        er… white-space: nowrap

        just an example of when something needs to be edited… ;)

      • http://www.darklightdusk.nl Luuk Lamers

        Usage instead of wbr could be the validating ­ and ​ which almost do the same and wouldn’t need to be inside a NOBR tag or any tag at all. it’s just a break-up technique.

      • http://www.darklightdusk.nl Luuk Lamers

        Sigh, shitty site for not using htmlentities().

        I wanted to say:

        Usage instead of wbr could be the validating [&]shy; and [&]#8203;​ which almost do the same and wouldn’t need to be inside a NOBR tag or any tag at all. it’s just a break-up technique. delete the [ and ] signs from the content above to actually have it working.

    • http://randsco.com scott kimler

      Paul … Agreed. ’bout blew my lid when I saw the semantic abuse of <acronym>. I use <span class=”info” title=” More information here “> for stuff like that. Plus, I’ve even made a pure-CSS popInfo box, if you’ve more information than what might show in bubble-text.

      http://randsco.com/index.php/2007/12/22/rockin_da_sidebah

      This article should be stricken. (“rel” a tag? geez)

    • Cru

      Ugh.. reading that critique turns my stomach for the thousands of ways every developer thinks their way is the right way until another claims they’re wrong. All the while, practically everyone’s work is breaking under some condition… never completely satisfying.

  • http://projectdeploy.org Oscar Godson

    Yeah, fieldset is required and if you are not using it then you aren’t even making forms the right way ;) If you haven’t used it, every site you have done should fail on validation, so hopefully this isn’t too rare…

    • http://twitter.com/Kitanya Kitanya

      Required with what version of XHTML? I have validated many pages with forms and never used a fieldset and they have all validated. I am using 1.0 Strict.

      • http://projectdeploy.org Oscar Godson

        OK, let me explain myself further :)

        Every needs to have some sort of block element wrapping the . You can not, for example, have but you _could_ have:

        But this is not the _right_ way of doing this. When specifying a form you should put a WITH a , of course, because s need a block element wrapping them, like this:

        Search

        But just because you can validate a form by wrapping it with most all block elements(i *believe* can’t wrap it in a blockquote) doesn’t mean it’s right, for example, does this look right?

        There are others you could do such as , but that makes no semantic sense. Even makes no sense really. I can understand and though…

      • http://projectdeploy.org Oscar Godson

        Also, XHTML 1.0 is like saying “Hey browser look, it looks like XHTML, but it isnt! HA!”

        XHTML really is just fad I have come to find out. I used to use XHTML, and still do where I have to, like WP, but it really is a fad. Unless you are using valid XHTML 1.1 (and declare XML), don’t use XHTML because it’s meaningless. :P

      • http://projectdeploy.org Oscar Godson

        Damn it, netuts strips out code? Why not just convert it to html entities! It’s only 1 line of code!

        Well, my previous comment now looks completely moronic, ok, to get to my point since I can’t actually show examples I guess, and there is no edit button, nor a preview button in site:

        you can wrap you inputs in your form with MOST block elements such as p, pre, h1-h6, etc, but having

        [h1][input][/h1] or [pre][input][/pre] makes no semantic sense and should not be done! Use
        [form]
        [fieldset]
        [legend]Fieldset group name[/legend]…(inputs here)…
        [/fieldset]
        [form]

    • Liam

      Except a site without a fieldset, will validate XHTML Strict.

  • lol

    chera meu cu

    • GF

      Are you brazilian? You should spend your time writing good stuff.

  • http://www.webcoursesbangkok.com Carl – Web Site Design Instructor

    Some nice stuff in here, I especially liked the tags , and .

    For our development course the “rel” is very useful as its important to keep the Javascript outside of the HTML and the rel is that bridge :)

    I will bring these into our course content for Web Courses Bangkok.

    • Tycho

      Are you kidding? did you not real Pauls comments on all the fauls with this article. Following this will only lead your students to destruction. If you want to teach them proper web standards, send your students to http://www.w3schools.com not this article

  • http://www.impatient.ca/ Kevin Patrick Robbins

    Your use of the acronym tag is incorrect. It is not meant to define or further explain a group of words, but to provide the user with the ability to see the full name of an acronymic term, such as UNESCO, PETA or NCAA.

    In fact, your example of the abbreviation tag should actually use the acronym tag, since NCAA is an acronym. Your description is correct, but the example is far from it.

    Examples of abbreviations are:

    ea (each)
    tbsp (tablespoon)
    km (kilometre)
    abbr (abbreviation)

    • Stuart

      If NCAA is an acronym, care to tell us how it is pronounced?

      • Dan

        It’s pronounced en-see-aye-aye.

      • http://www.menacestudio.com Dennis

        LOL. An acronym cannot be pronounced, hence it’s an acronym! Acronyms are pronounced as individual letters. Kevin is right.
        LOL is an acronym for laughing out loud. :)

      • jason

        NCAA is pronounced as letters but not all acronyms are. NASA and SCUBA are two acronyms that have a proper pronunciation and are not just “Spelled” out. People outside of the USA may not know NCAA (which BTW can be pronounced “N-C-double A” as well)

      • jim

        NCAA is an initialism. An acronym is pronounced as a word.

      • Alexander

        “It’s pronounced en-see-aye-aye.”

        I believe it’s more like en-see-eh-eh, with a Canadian Prairies accent.

      • Tzafra

        Most people in the USA probably have no idea that SCUBA is actually an acronym. (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus).

      • http://twitter.com/michaelstrelan Michael

        Yeah or LASER – Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation … not LAZER … fucking americans

  • http://paularmstrongdesigns.com Paul Armstrong

    Oscar Godson: fieldset is not required for all doctypes, only XHTML Strict

    • http://www.impressivewebs.com Louis

      Actually, that’s not true. Fieldset is not required for XHTML strict. You can wrap your form elements in a simple DIV and it will validate just fine. As long as there is something in between the form and the field elements, it’s fine. For example, visit this page, which I coded a while back, and you’ll see that it validates for Strict but does not have a fieldset on either of the two forms:

      http://www.foremostcanada.com/submitQuestion.php

      • http://juarezpaf.com Juarez P. A. Filho

        That’s right Louis. fieldset is not required, but it’s semantically correct instead DIV tag

    • http://projectdeploy.org Oscar Godson

      all of you, what ever happened to SEMANTICS! Yes, so does wrapping an input with h1 or pre, but no one would do that because, it’s not right, neither is wrapping your entire inner form with p tags or divs!

  • Brian K

    was new to me, thanks!

    Oscar I really like what you have going on with your site!! Kudos

  • Aaron Boushley

    Apparently opt group doesn’t work in chrome… browsing in it right now and had to open up firefox to see the effect. Although it seems like a pretty nice thing.

    And the rel attribute is valid on all tags? Thats nice.

    • http://andrew8088.blogspot.com Andrew

      Worked in Chrome for me; great article, BTW!

    • http://www.najnovijevesti.net Najnovije Vesti

      Gooogle Chrome the fastest browser and like it as a possibility to put SeoQuake it means a lot when searching to see Alexa and Google PR.

  • Pingback: 10 Rare HTML Tags You Really Should Know

  • http://www.zachstronaut.com/ Zachary Johnson

    No, Aaron, it was just used incorrectly in the tutorial. The optgroup’s should wrap the options.

    • Aaron Boushley

      Ya… They must have fixed it… because it works great for me in chrome now. Had me a bit worried for a bit. Its a great article either way, just thought it was a cool tag, glad its not deprecated or anything.

  • Brandon

    The example you have for the abbr tag is actually an acronym and should have been used with the acronym tag.

    I am a little uneasy about using acronym or abbr for anything other than what they are meant for. I worry about screen readers saying that Twitter is an acronym for “Founded in 2006″

    I don’t think you are using REL properly either as REL and REV are both attributes of A and LINK and have specific uses. It seems with the example that you give that you might as well just use extra class names.

    All the rest of the tags are good to use. wbr and label are both great tags.

  • http://dineshviswnath.blogspot.com Dinesh

    Good Contribution… Cool & neat. I need to have same thing for JS

  • http://paulozoom.com Paulo Pereira

    Kinda disappointing that NetTuts, which usually has great quality posts, let this one slip with errors, such as:
    * optgroup is badly used
    * isn’t self closed ( is) and it isn’t standard. Using non-standard elements should be disencouraged.

  • http://www.brucebrownlee.com Bruce Brownlee

    Yes, we often use the tag, often in combination with the and tags. OK, serioiusly, the acronym tag is handy, and the label tag is pretty useful if you do a lot of form work

  • http://www.brucebrownlee.com Bruce Brownlee

    Before html got stripped, that said we use the wbr tag, often with the wtf and lol tags.

  • Merxhan

    Nice Article.
    I didn’t know that exists. And is required when using strict xhtml.

  • http://www.cuecasuja.com XAngel

    Nice!
    Tks a lot…

  • EVula

    Also note, it should probably be <wbr />.

  • Krunal Shah

    nice ones

  • http://donothing.ru art

    It could be cool if some of these tags were in WYSIWYG editors

    Thanks for article!

  • http://emilygonsalves.com/ Emily

    Nice article. The alternatives to wbr aren’t showing up properly in browser though, you might want to edit that.

  • Dave K

    NCAA is an acronym not an abbreviation

  • http://atourworst.org Jordan

    The use of the acronym tag is wrong. Twitter has no acronym so it wouldn’t require the use of the acronym tag. An acronym is: “A word formed from the initial parts of a name, such as NATO, from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, or Commintern, from Communist International.”

    Using “Founded in 2006″ is far from it!

    • http://www.marissawells.com/ Marissa Wells

      Beat me to it! Definitely incorrect usage. That seems like the sort of thing that could easily just be put in parenthesis or a footnote anyway.

  • http://blog.insicdesigns.com insic

    ? is this valid without a closing tag? I dont know this tag so maybe it could be like this

    • http://blog.insicdesigns.com insic

      <wbr> ? is this valid without a closing tag? I dont know this tag so maybe it could be like this <wbr />

      • http://twitter.com/marvinbarretto Marvin

        ‘wbr’ isnt part of the spec and therefore will invalidate your HTML regardless of closing tag.

      • http://www.venture-ware.com Kevin Jensen

        it doesn’t need a closing tag in HTML, but you could close it out with </wbr> or just <wbr />.

      • SelenIT

        Validity of any markup means that it fits the corresponding DTD. No DTD for any version of (X)HTML contains the definition of . So is always invalid, with trailing slash or without it.

        The requirement of closing empty tags with slashes is about XML wellformedness, not (X)HTML validity. XHTML pages must be well-formed to be parsed when served with proper content-type (e.g. application/xhtml+xml). In all other cases the well-formedness doesn’t matter at all.

  • EricTN

    w3c.org says this in HTML 4.1 discussing acronym and abbr:

    Western languages make extensive use of acronyms such as “GmbH”, “NATO”, and “F.B.I.”, as well as abbreviations like “M.”, “Inc.”, “et al.”, “etc.”.

    It appears the w3c would’ve wrapped NCAA in an acronym tag rather than an abbr tag.

    However the word acronym is not clearly defined; some people believe it’s not an acronym unless you can pronounce it like a word (NATO).

    None of the above necesarily means that the suggestions you made for the usage of the tags aren’t good ideas. Sometimes the tags don’t have the best names for what they are best used for.

  • Pingback: 10 Rare HTML Tags You Should Know « Westgate Internet Marketing

  • http://webjackalope.com Glen Stansberry
    Author

    Hey Guys, just a couple things about the article:

    1. The example was messed up by WordPress. We’re working on it.

    2. The and examples are, well… wrong :) I goofed on those. They should be fixed shortly to show correct examples of acronyms and abbreviations.

    Thanks for reading, and keep up the great comments!

  • http://webjackalope.com Glen Stansberry
    Author

    Er… ok and #2 in the above comment meant to say:

    “2. The abbr and acronym examples are, well… wrong I goofed on those. They should be fixed shortly to show correct examples of acronyms and abbreviations.”

  • kirie

    talking about rare, how about this one
    text here
    I think only several people know this

    I already know all 9 tag except wbr, and fieldset, label and legend isnt rare I think

  • kirie

    great my tag disapper
    this is a rare tag that I was pointed

    “marquee”

    using to roll text or other element as long it was visible

    • http://twitter.com/Kitanya Kitanya

      The marquee tag is ‘rare’ because it is both invalid and not professional. I used it a few times while I was initially learning, but if you use it on a website be prepared for ridicule, haha.

    • Liam

      Marquee is IE only, just like styling the scrollbars.

      • http://principalquattrano.com/blog Angela Quattrano

        Marquee works to some extent in Firefox and Opera. I wrote a very popular tutorial on using it. The target audience was of course people with middle-school taste in design.

    • http://multilayerdesign.com Kev Jaques

      There are easy ways to recreate this, simple bits of JavaScript will get the ball rolling again :)

      As others have pointed out, fieldset, labels are required, not too many people look to WAI validation, going forward it’s going to matter.

      • Paperboy

        I would love to see an marquee plugin for jQuery LOL!

    • http://anti-aol.livejournal.com Marah Marie

      Marquee is a great tag. If you want to see it in action just read a lot of LJs and MySpaces where that and the blink tag still abound. Eventually you may get the notion it’s immature and unsightly but I liked it when I was just learning HTML.

    • SelenIT

      MARQUEE tag is not a part of any (X)HTML spec, its obsolete. But you will soon be able to implement its behavior with CSS3: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-marquee/

  • http://www.firvan.com sky

    it’s so cool..

    thank u for your post..

  • http://semidailydose.blogspot.com Mike Jones

    Great post! Thanks for pulling some oldies but goodies out of the back of the tool shed.

  • Patrik

    In the -section at #7, the radio buttons doesn’t have the same formname. They have yes/no now, which makes both of them clickable.

    • http://www.andrislinz.ch Andris

      wanted to mention this, too. but you were first.

    • http://milk-hub.net Phill Sparks

      I find it interesting how you discuss the label in #6 and then fail to use it in #7 with the labels for the checkboxes – something that any form designer would do automatically (as Martin mentions below).

  • http://www.leemunroe.com Lee Munroe

    Never knew about a couple of these. Don’t know about the default styling of ‘ins’. Surely it deceivingly looks like a link.

    • http://www.eyeheartzombies.com Kenneth

      No, it doesn’t (unless styled that way). By default, a link will be blue and an [ins] will be the same color as your text.

    • http://www.webstandardistas.com Christopher Murphy

      Indeed does look deceptively like a link, but can be differentiated using CSS. (A point we make in our recent book.)

      I find myself agreeing with a lot of the comments above, especially with regards to the fact that the word Twitter is not an . Ouch.

  • http://webdevilaz.com Jeremy

    This article is enlightening to some, but I think it needed more proofreading before it was published. “rel” is also a very commonly used in microformats. I always use labels, and nearly always use fieldset, though for while I was incorrectly placing it on the outside of the form instead of the inside. That really messes things up when validating to XHTML strict.

  • http://www.junglejar.com Christopher Hennis

    What is rare about these again? Are they collectible limited edition code snippets?

  • Antun

    Really nice list. I haven’t heard for some of this tags although I’ve been playing with websites for the last 5 years :D

    Hope to see more informative articles like this one!

  • http://www.i-marco.nl/weblog/ Marco

    Quite a few of these aren’t rare at all. fieldset, legend, label are all pretty much mandatory, in some cases because of the doctype, in pretty much all cases because it makes your forms much better.

    To be really honest, the only truly rare tag in this post would be the WBR tag. That one really is hardly ever used. The others are IMHO common. Possibly not as common as a P tag or a DIV tag but still… rather common.

  • Mads Kjaer

    The -tag is not used correctly. When marking up the meaning of the abbreviation SEO, you should use the appropriate -tag. Like this:

    SEO

  • Mads Kjaer

    Woops. Looks like the form accepted my -tag in my previous comment.

  • http://ryanroberts.co.uk/ Ryan Roberts

    It’s interesting how the address tag has changed to a different use due to misuse. Originally it wasn’t intended for displaying a location address, it was for addressing the author of a document. It looks like the W3C Schools now supports your use of the tag.

    • http://twitter.com/marvinbarretto Marvin

      Do yourself a favour and avoid W3C schools. Some of their examples are way way out of date and promote bad practice.

  • http://aardling.com/ Stijn Vogels

    Looks like does the same as ­

  • http://headzvault.net haRacz

    In 6th u write about using label and in 7th when u can use it u don’t do it.

  • http://www.pezholio.co.uk Pez

    Label isn’t really that rare. In fact, it’s essential for blind users who use a screenreader. Without it, form elements have no context. If you’re not using it, you really shouldn’t be calling yourself a web developer.