Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Tag soup

Tag soup is an informal term in referring to poorly structured or invalid markup code in languages like , where tags are used incorrectly or in violation of syntax specifications, resulting in non-conformant documents that browsers nonetheless attempt to render. This phenomenon arises from lax authoring practices and the historical tolerance of browsers for errors, allowing malformed content to proliferate across the early without breaking display. The term was coined by Dan Connolly of the (W3C) to describe parsers capable of accepting and processing arbitrary, non-standard input. The origins of tag soup trace back to the web's formative years in the , when browsers like those from and implemented custom, non-SGML-based parsing rather than adhering strictly to 's formal definition as an SGML application, as outlined in the HTML 2.0 specification (RFC 1866). This leniency enabled rapid content creation but fostered widespread invalid markup, with surveys indicating that the vast majority of web pages failed validation even into the mid-. As a result, tools like TagSoup—a SAX-compliant parser released in the early —were developed to handle such "nasty, ugly HTML" by repairing violations on the fly, ensuring well-formed output without permanent cleanup, in contrast to utilities like HTML Tidy. In modern web standards, tag soup's implications are addressed through the HTML Living Standard, which defines a robust, error-correcting algorithm to guarantee consistent rendering across browsers, effectively "legitimizing" malformed input while encouraging better authoring practices via validation tools and semantic guidelines. This approach prioritizes and over strict conformance, allowing the web's vast legacy content to remain accessible, though it complicates efforts toward XML-like precision in markup languages like .

Definition and History

Core Concept

Tag soup refers to syntactically or structurally invalid markup in documents, where elements are improperly nested, unclosed, or otherwise malformed, yet capable of being parsed and rendered by web browsers due to their built-in error recovery mechanisms. The term was coined by Dan Connolly of the (W3C) to describe parsers that tolerate arbitrary or misplaced elements, such as a <title> tag appearing in the document body rather than the head. Unlike valid, well-formed markup that adheres to standards like those in the specification, tag soup violates rules for nesting, closure, and syntax, often resulting from lax authoring practices in early . Key characteristics of tag soup include its reliance on browser tolerance, which allows documents to display content despite errors, but can lead to inconsistent or unpredictable rendering across different user agents. For instance, browsers maintain a of open elements during to detect and correct misnesting, such as in the malformed <b>bold <i>italic </b></i>, which a parser might recover as <b>bold <i>italic</i></b>. This distinction from valid markup is critical: while standards-compliant ensures predictable behavior and semantic integrity, tag soup depends on ad-hoc recovery, potentially introducing accessibility issues or layout quirks. Simple examples illustrate tag soup's prevalence. An unclosed <p> tag, like <p>This paragraph lacks a closing tag. <div>Next element.</div>, may cause subsequent content to render incorrectly in some browsers, as the parser implies closure based on . Similarly, mismatched nesting, such as <div><p>Unclosed div with nested p</div></p>, exploits error recovery where the browser closes the <p> implicitly before the <div>. These instances "work" because user agents, following the parsing algorithm, switch insertion modes and adjust the document tree without halting, ensuring with legacy content. Such mechanisms were particularly vital for pre-HTML5 web pages, where non-standard markup dominated.

Origins in Early Web Development

Malformed or non-standard HTML markup that browsers attempt to render despite violations of the formal syntax emerged prominently in the mid-1990s as the rapidly expanded. With the release of as an in November 1995 via , the gained a foundational specification intended to promote , but its adoption was overshadowed by the explosive growth of creation without rigorous enforcement of validity rules. This period marked the of tag soup, as developers and early web authors prioritized functionality over strict compliance, leading to widespread use of ad-hoc extensions and errors in markup. The browser wars between Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer, intensifying from 1995 to 1999, further exacerbated the rise of tag soup by incentivizing proprietary HTML extensions to differentiate products and capture market share. Netscape introduced features like the
element and BGCOLOR attribute, while Internet Explorer added elements such as , creating a fragmented ecosystem where authors exploited these non-standard tags for visual effects, often resulting in invalid documents that only rendered correctly in specific browsers. This competition undermined the stability of HTML 2.0, as vendors raced to implement unsupported attributes and elements, fostering a culture of tolerance for syntactic irregularities in parsing engines. In response, the (W3C), founded in 1994, intensified efforts to standardize starting in 1996 by establishing the HTML Editorial Review Board (ERB) in February of that year to reconcile vendor extensions into a cohesive . The board's work culminated in 3.2, released as a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 1997, which served as a pragmatic compromise by incorporating popular but non-standard features like tables and alignment while de-emphasizing stricter validity requirements from the abandoned HTML 3.0 draft. This specification effectively codified many tag soup practices as de facto standards to ensure , reflecting the web's evolution amid unchecked growth. Contributing to the proliferation of invalid markup were early authoring tools, such as the initial release of in 1995, which generated code that frequently deviated from standards to achieve what-you-see-is-what-you-get () editing, including unnecessary proprietary tags and structural errors. These tools democratized but amplified tag soup by producing documents with unclosed tags, deprecated attributes, and browser-specific quirks, often without alerting users to compliance issues. By the late 1990s, such practices had entrenched tag soup as a core challenge in web rendering, setting the stage for ongoing parser innovations.

Causes

Markup Syntax Errors

Markup syntax errors in HTML represent fundamental violations of the language's grammatical rules, resulting in malformed documents that contribute significantly to tag soup. These errors occur at the level, disrupting the expected structure that parsers rely on for accurate rendering. Common examples include unclosed tags, where an opening like <b> lacks a corresponding closing </b>, causing subsequent content to be incorrectly interpreted as part of the bolded section. Improper nesting, such as placing a <div> inside a <p> , violates the hierarchical rules defined in the specification, leading parsers to auto-correct by implicitly closing the paragraph. Attribute mishandling, like omitting quotes around values (e.g., <img src=image.jpg> instead of <img src="image.jpg">), can confuse parsers, especially with values containing spaces or special characters. A study by in 2006 analyzed 667,416 HTML files and found that over 93% contained syntax errors, highlighting the prevalence of such issues in early that persists in legacy sites. These low-level flaws force browsers to employ error-recovery mechanisms, as outlined in the Living Standard, to render the page despite the invalidity. issues arise because, although tags and attribute names are defined as ASCII case-insensitive in the specification, inconsistent use of uppercase and lowercase (e.g., <P> versus <p>) can trigger validation errors in tools enforcing lowercase conventions, potentially leading to parsing inconsistencies in stricter environments like . The recommends lowercase for consistency, but legacy code often mixes cases, exacerbating tag soup in transitional documents. The overuse or misuse of deprecated elements, such as <font> for styling text or <center> for alignment, constitutes a in modern , as these presentational tags are obsolete and non-conforming. Their inclusion in transitional code from the and early often results from direct of old markup without updates, prompting validators to flag them and parsers to ignore or emulate their effects via fallback rules. This practice not only invalidates the document but also hinders semantic clarity, as these elements conflate structure with presentation.

Structural and Semantic Violations

Structural and semantic violations in HTML documents contribute significantly to tag soup by undermining the intended hierarchical organization and meaning of markup, resulting in documents that deviate from the standard tree model defined in the HTML specification. Invalid document structures, such as the absence of a DOCTYPE declaration, force browsers into quirks mode, where layout and rendering behaviors mimic older, non-standard interpretations rather than adhering to modern standards; this leads to a non-conformant DOM tree that may exhibit inconsistent styling and positioning across user agents. Similarly, improper usage of essential elements like <head> or <body>—for instance, omitting the <head> element or placing content outside its designated scope—triggers parser adjustments in the insertion mode, causing elements to be inserted into unintended locations within the DOM, thereby fragmenting the document outline and violating the expected parent-child relationships in the HTML tree model. Semantic violations exacerbate tag soup by misapplying elements in ways that prioritize visual presentation over meaningful content structure, leading to DOM trees that fail to convey logical hierarchies for assistive technologies and search engines. A common example is the misuse of <table> elements for purposes, such as arranging non-tabular content like menus or page sections into grid-like formations; this practice disrupts the linear reading order, causing content to lose its intended sequence when processed by screen readers, which interpret tables row-by-row without regard for visual positioning. In contrast, semantic elements like <article> for independent content pieces or <section> for thematic groupings are designed to explicitly denote structure, ensuring the DOM accurately reflects the document's outline without relying on presentational hacks. The inclusion of proprietary or discontinued elements further compounds these issues, introducing non-standard nodes into the DOM that modern parsers must handle through error recovery mechanisms. Elements like <marquee>, originally developed by for to enable scrolling text, and <blink>, a Netscape-specific tag for flashing content, were browser-proprietary extensions that never achieved ; their use now results in obsolete features that parsers ignore or emulate inconsistently, producing fragmented DOM hierarchies incompatible with contemporary standards. Unlike pure syntax errors, these structural and semantic flaws affect the overall , yielding non-conformant DOM trees where the resulting deviates from the intended semantic outline, even as browsers' tag soup tolerance—guided by unified algorithms—attempts to construct a usable representation.

Implications

Rendering and Compatibility Challenges

Tag soup, or malformed HTML, often results in rendering inconsistencies across browsers due to variations in their error-correction algorithms. Historically, browsers like introduced "quirks mode" to emulate the lenient parsing of early web content, contrasting with "standards mode" that adheres more closely to specifications; this doctype-based switching could trigger layout shifts when tag soup lacked a proper DOCTYPE declaration, causing elements to render differently based on the mode activated. As of 2025, quirks mode continues to be supported in major browsers like , , and to ensure compatibility with legacy content, potentially affecting rendering of tag soup. Even in modern implementations, subtle differences persist; for instance, and , while both following the parsing specification's state machine for handling invalid nesting and unclosed tags, may apply recovery steps in ways that lead to minor visual discrepancies, such as altered spacing or element positioning in complex documents. These inconsistencies extend to compatibility challenges, particularly in non-desktop environments. On mobile devices, tag soup can exacerbate rendering failures when browsers prioritize performance optimizations, potentially omitting or reinterpreting malformed structures under resource constraints. Accessibility tools, such as screen readers, frequently misinterpret invalid nesting— for example, a <div> incorrectly placed inside a <p> may be announced as separate paragraphs, disrupting navigation flow for users relying on semantic structure. A notable historical example is the IE box model bug, first prominent in around 2000, where the browser's non-standard calculation of element widths (including padding and borders in the specified width) was worsened by tag soup in pages integrating CSS without proper DOCTYPEs, triggering quirks mode and leading to widespread layout overflows. Performance impacts arise from the computational overhead of error recovery during . The HTML5 specification's extensive state transitions for tag soup—such as reconsuming characters and adjusting insertion modes—require additional processing, which can delay DOM construction and increase overall load times; invalid elements in critical sections like the <head>, for instance, have been observed to stall resource downloads and regress metrics like First Contentful Paint.

Development and Maintenance Burdens

Tag soup presents significant maintenance difficulties in , particularly when large codebases where invalid markup intertwines with logic, resulting in what is often described as "." This unstructured mix complicates updates and refactoring, as developers must navigate unpredictable parsing behaviors across browsers, increasing the time required to identify and resolve issues. For instance, pages with hundreds of validation errors from systems or third-party integrations can demand extensive manual corrections, turning routine tasks into protracted efforts. Collaboration among development teams is further hindered by tag soup, as inheriting invalid markup from legacy systems creates inconsistencies that propagate errors and obscure changes in systems. In environments using tools like , reviewing diffs becomes more error-prone when malformed obscures semantic intent, leading to higher rates of merge conflicts and overlooked bugs during code reviews. This legacy burden often requires additional training or documentation to onboard new team members, amplifying coordination overhead in multi-developer projects. The economic implications of tag soup are substantial, contributing to elevated development costs through prolonged maintenance cycles. Surveys indicate that developers allocate approximately 30% of their time to code maintenance activities. In a 2005 personal account, one developer reported that fixing validation errors accounted for about 15% of their workflow, underscoring how tag soup inflates budgets for ongoing site upkeep. Beyond operational challenges, tag soup introduces security risks by facilitating injection vulnerabilities, particularly in scenarios involving unescaped attributes within malformed forms. Browsers' lenient "tag soup" parsing can inadvertently allow malicious scripts to execute if user input bypasses proper , enabling (XSS) attacks that compromise user sessions or data. For example, in older browsers like Apple 1.2.4, the parser's handling of as HTML despite specified types created openings for XSS by rendering injected tags without escaping. Modern tools like jsoup address this by parsing tag soup into a structured tree and applying safelists to strip dangerous elements, but legacy invalid markup remains a vector for such exploits in unsanitized contexts.

Evolutionary Solutions

Transition to Strict Standards

The transition to stricter web standards began with the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) introduction of 1.0 in January 2000, which reformulated 4 as an XML 1.0 application to enforce well-formed markup and serve as a strict alternative to the more lenient specifications. This shift required documents to adhere to XML rules, including proper nesting of elements, mandatory closing tags, quoted attribute values, and lowercase element names, aiming to eliminate common sources of tag soup prevalent in legacy . Building on this, 1.1 was recommended by the W3C in May 2001, introducing a modular framework that excluded deprecated 4 features and provided a basis for extensible, stricter document types while maintaining the well-formedness requirements of its predecessor. However, the pursuit of even stricter standards culminated in XHTML 2.0, drafted starting in 2005, which aimed to further diverge from HTML toward a pure XML-based model without backward compatibility. In July 2009, the W3C decided to discontinue XHTML 2.0, allowing the XHTML 2 Working Group charter to expire in December 2010, redirecting resources to HTML5 development. Key milestones in this evolution included the decline of proprietary HTML elements following the browser wars of the late 1990s, as browser vendors like Netscape and Microsoft increasingly aligned with W3C standards to improve interoperability. A pivotal mechanism was the introduction of DOCTYPE switching around 1998, which allowed browsers to detect a valid DOCTYPE declaration at the document's start and activate standards mode, rendering pages according to W3C specifications rather than emulating the quirks of older, proprietary implementations. This addressed the fragmentation caused by vendor-specific extensions during the wars, gradually reducing reliance on non-standard elements like and . HTML5, developed collaboratively by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group () and formalized as a W3C Recommendation on October 28, 2014, marked a balanced approach by incorporating a forgiving parser to handle malformed markup while emphasizing semantic validity to discourage tag soup. Unlike XHTML's zero-tolerance for errors—where invalid markup would fail to parse entirely—HTML5 promoted validity through encouraged best practices and robust error recovery, allowing legacy content to render reliably without abandoning strict structural ideals. This evolution reflected a pragmatic compromise, prioritizing web compatibility over rigid syntax while fostering cleaner, more maintainable code.

Modern Parsing and Validation Approaches

The parsing algorithm, defined by the , incorporates robust error mechanisms to handle malformed HTML input gracefully, preventing crashes and ensuring a consistent (DOM) is constructed even from tag soup. This is achieved through a two-stage process: tokenization, which breaks the input stream into tokens such as start tags, end tags, and character data while managing errors like invalid characters by emitting replacement characters (e.g., U+FFFD for NULL bytes) or switching to states like the "bogus comment state"; and tree construction, which uses a stack of open elements and dynamic insertion modes—such as "in body," "in ," or ""—to dictate how tokens are processed and inserted into the DOM. For instance, insertion modes adjust for nesting errors by implying end tags or foster-parenting misplaced elements, allowing browsers to recover from structural violations like unclosed tags or improper nesting without halting parsing. Validation tools play a crucial role in identifying tag soup issues before deployment. The , operational since 1997 and continuously updated, now fully supports through its non-DTD-based checker, enabling developers to submit URIs, file uploads, or direct input for conformance checks against the HTML5 specification, flagging errors like missing attributes or invalid elements. Browser developer tools, such as the Elements panel in Chrome DevTools, provide real-time inspection of the parsed DOM, highlighting inconsistencies from malformed markup—such as unexpected element hierarchies—through live editing and console warnings for parse errors, facilitating immediate during development. CSS techniques complement by addressing rendering inconsistencies arising from tag soup. Selectors can be designed with high specificity and robustness, such as attribute-based or selectors (e.g., [data-role="content"] or *), to target elements reliably regardless of parsing-induced structural variations across s. Additionally, CSS resets like Normalize.css establish a consistent baseline for element styling, mitigating default differences that amplify tag soup effects, such as erratic margins or font rendering in legacy or forgiving parsers. Emerging approaches focus on proactive cleaning and . Server-side sanitizers, including adaptations of DOMPurify—a JavaScript library originating in the —process to remove or escape malicious or malformed tags before rendering, preventing tag soup from propagating XSS vulnerabilities while preserving valid structure. Polyfills like html5shiv extend legacy browser support by injecting scripts that enable recognition and basic styling of elements (e.g., <section>, <article>) in older versions, ensuring consistent parsing and rendering of modern markup in environments prone to tag soup failures.

Best Practices and Mitigation

Adopting Valid Markup Techniques

Adopting valid markup techniques involves foundational practices that ensure documents conform to web standards, thereby preventing the formation of tag soup. Developers should always close all tags to maintain proper document structure, as unclosed tags can lead to errors and unpredictable rendering across browsers. For instance, using <p>Some text</p> instead of <p>Some text avoids issues where subsequent elements might be incorrectly nested. Additionally, employing semantic elements, such as <header> for introductory content or <article> for self-contained sections, provides meaningful structure over generic <div> tags with classes like <div class="header">. This approach enhances document comprehension for both machines and humans, as outlined in the Living Standard. Validating markup early in the development process, using tools like the W3C Markup Validator, catches errors before they propagate, promoting cleaner code from the outset. Integrating validation into development workflows reinforces these techniques at scale. Linters such as HTMLHint can be incorporated into integrated development environments (IDEs) like Visual Studio Code, which has supported extensions since its initial release in 2015, providing real-time feedback on syntax and best practices as code is written. For team environments, embedding HTMLHint or similar linters into continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipelines automates checks during builds, ensuring compliance before deployment and reducing manual oversight. When dealing with legacy codebases, gradual migration strategies allow for incremental adoption of valid markup without disrupting existing functionality. This can involve refactoring sections of over time, prioritizing high-impact areas like or forms, to transition from malformed structures to standards-compliant ones. For compatibility with older browsers that lack support for semantic elements, polyfill shims like html5shiv can be included via to enable recognition and basic styling of elements such as <header> in versions prior to 9. These practices yield tangible benefits, including fewer runtime bugs due to consistent parsing, improved search engine optimization through better content structure that aids crawling and indexing, and enhanced accessibility in line with (WCAG) 2.2, published in 2023, which emphasizes perceivable and operable content for users with disabilities.

Tools for Detection and Correction

Tools for detecting tag soup primarily include validators that parse and report syntactic errors in HTML markup. The Nu Html Checker, also known as vnu, is an open-source tool developed in the late and refined through the 2010s for conformance, offering command-line, web-based, and API-driven validation to identify malformed structures such as unclosed tags or improper nesting. It processes documents against the HTML Living Standard, highlighting issues like tag soup that could lead to inconsistent rendering across browsers. Similarly, HTML Tidy, originating from the W3C's project in 1998, functions as a application and library that detects and diagnoses markup errors while providing options for pretty-printing output. Updated in 2011 and beyond to support , it scans for common tag soup indicators, such as missing end tags or deprecated elements, and generates reports for remediation. Correction utilities focus on automated reformatting to mitigate detected issues. js-beautify, a JavaScript-based tool available since 2010, supports processing to re-indent code, adjust brace styles, and ensure proper tag structure, though it primarily enhances readability rather than fully repairing complex errors. Prettier, an opinionated formatter introduced in 2017, handles natively by parsing the () and reprinting with consistent rules, such as line wrapping and indentation, to produce clean, valid output that reduces tag soup remnants. These tools integrate into development workflows, like plugins, to apply fixes during editing or build processes. Advanced options in the 2020s incorporate and browser extensions for more interactive assistance. , launched in 2021, uses to suggest valid markup in real-time within , drawing from contextual code patterns to propose syntactically correct snippets that avoid common tag soup pitfalls. Browser extensions like the Web Developer Toolbar, first released in 2005 and updated regularly, provide on-the-fly validation by integrating with services like the W3C validator, allowing developers to outline and error-highlight malformed sections directly in the browser. Despite these capabilities, tools for detection and correction have inherent limitations, particularly in addressing semantic violations. Validators like the focus on structural and syntactic conformance but cannot evaluate semantic correctness, such as the appropriate use of elements for content meaning or , necessitating human review for comprehensive fixes. Automated fixers may resolve basic tag mismatches but often overlook context-dependent issues, underscoring the need for complementary manual practices in markup adoption.

References

  1. [1]
    Tag-soup Definition & Meaning - YourDictionary
    Tag-soup definition: (computing, Internet, informal) Poorly structured code in a markup language that uses tags (such as HTML), especially when it violates
  2. [2]
    TagSoup home page
    TagSoup is designed as a parser, not a whole application; it isn't intended to permanently clean up bad HTML, as HTML Tidy does, only to parse it on the fly.Introduction · Tagsoup 1.2.1 released · TagSoup 1.2 released · What TagSoup does
  3. [3]
    The Future: HTML or XHTML | Lachy's Log - Lachlan Hunt
    Apr 10, 2005 · ... coining of the term tag soup by Dan Connolly) had already been done. None of the HTML browsers that were implemented prior to HTML 2.0 ...
  4. [4]
    Response to “Notes on HTML 5” - The WHATWG Blog
    Sep 3, 2009 · See, for example, FAQ: why does HTML 5 legitimise tag soup and HTML Design Principles: Priority of Constituencies. ... parsing attributes) being ...
  5. [5]
    HTML5 - W3C
    ... HTML on the Web is not well-formed XML… …we need to interoperably handle that “real world” (or “tag soup”) HTML. Precisely specifying parsing of “real world” ...
  6. [6]
    What is Tag Soup? - Scripting News
    Oct 12, 2002 · To use it for any other purpose than containing a quote of several sentences or paragraphs is to break one of the cardinal rules of the Web. But ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  7. [7]
    HTML Standard
    Summary of each segment:
  8. [8]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#tree-construction
  9. [9]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#the-list-of-active-formatting-elements
  10. [10]
    The Evolution of Web Documents - XML.com
    Oct 2, 1997 · In this article, we trace the history and evolution of Web data formats, culminating in XML. We evaluate the relationship of XML, HTML, and SGML.
  11. [11]
    2 - A history of HTML - W3C
    This chapter is a short history of HTML. Its aim is to give readers some idea of how the HTML we use today was developed from the prototype written by Tim ...
  12. [12]
    The World Wide Web Consortium Issues HTML 3.2 as a ... - W3C
    Jan 14, 1997 · The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) today endorsed the HTML 3.2 specification as a W3C Recommendation. The Recommendation indicates that the specification is ...Missing: compromise validity
  13. [13]
    HTML 3.2 Reference Specification - W3C
    Mar 15, 2018 · This specification defines HTML version 3.2. HTML 3.2 aims to capture recommended practice as of early '96 and as such to be used as a replacement for HTML 2.0.Missing: compromise | Show results with:compromise
  14. [14]
    Microsoft FrontPage History: WYSIWYG for the Web - Tedium
    Mar 2, 2017 · "We've heard in the past that customers felt our code wasn't transparent enough, that we generated messy code," she told CNET. “We've really ...<|separator|>
  15. [15]
    Top 3 Bugs in HTML Coding and How to Fix Them Effectively
    Jan 17, 2025 · 1. Unclosed Tags. One of the most common HTML errors is unclosed tags. This occurs when a developer forgets to close an HTML tag, leading to ...Missing: soup | Show results with:soup
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Top 10 reasons for a webpage to fail the HTML validator
    An “invalid” webpage may be rendered differently by different browsers; it may not be machine- processable; it might not be translated into other Web document.
  17. [17]
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0048.html
  18. [18]
    HTML Elements - W3Schools
    HTML tags are not case sensitive: <P> means the same as <p> . The HTML standard does not require lowercase tags, but W3C recommends lowercase in HTML, and ...Missing: issues | Show results with:issues
  19. [19]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#the-insertion-mode
  20. [20]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#doctype-state
  21. [21]
    Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.2 due to using an HTML layout table ...
    This failure occurs when a meaningful sequence of content conveyed through presentation is lost because HTML tables used to control the visual placement of the ...
  22. [22]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-article-element
  23. [23]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-section-element
  24. [24]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/obsolete.html#the-marquee-element
  25. [25]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features
  26. [26]
    Understanding quirks and standards modes - HTML - MDN Web Docs
    Jul 9, 2025 · There are now three modes used by the layout engines in web browsers: quirks mode, limited-quirks mode, and no-quirks mode.Missing: soup | Show results with:soup
  27. [27]
    Activating Browser Modes with Doctype - Henri Sivonen
    Jan 6, 2020 · Explains how browsers use doctype sniffing to switch the engine mode between the quirks mode and the standards mode.
  28. [28]
    The Revenge of the IE Box Model? - Jeff Kaufman
    Feb 18, 2012 · IE was treating width to include the border and the padding while CSS1 treated width as including only the content. This became known as the IE box model.Missing: tag soup
  29. [29]
    How invalid HTML elements impact web performance - Erwin Hofman
    Mar 26, 2024 · Watch out for invalid HTML elements in yourHTML head. A div, input or img can result in unexpected browser behaviour, slowing down page ...Missing: malformed | Show results with:malformed
  30. [30]
    Where Our Standards Went Wrong - A List Apart
    We'll be discussing common validation killers and ways around them in an upcoming A List Apart article.
  31. [31]
    Developers spend 30% of their time on code maintenance - Sonar
    Mar 14, 2019 · Our survey found that most respondents (70%) spend between 11 percent and 50 percent of their time on code maintenance.
  32. [32]
    Cross Site Scripting (XSS) - OWASP Foundation
    Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks are a type of injection, in which malicious scripts are injected into otherwise benign and trusted websites.
  33. [33]
    Bugtraq: Input Validation Vulnerability in Apple Safari version 1.2.4 ...
    ... tag soup. The security problem is that servers serving HTML may be taking measures to prevent XSS attacks; i.e. they convert < to &lt;. These servers, when ...
  34. [34]
    Defending against XSS attacks with Jsoup - Spring Cloud
    Apr 24, 2022 · jsoup is designed to deal with all varieties of HTML found in the wild; from pristine and validating, to invalid tag-soup; jsoup will create a ...
  35. [35]
    XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
    **Summary of XHTML 1.0 from https://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/:**
  36. [36]
    https://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531
  37. [37]
    HTML Standard
    ### Summary of Browser Wars, Proprietary Extensions, Shift to Standards, and DOCTYPE Role in Standards Mode
  38. [38]
    HTML Standard
    Summary of each segment:
  39. [39]
    https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/
  40. [40]
    The W3C Markup Validation Service
    This validator checks the markup validity of Web documents in HTML, XHTML, SMIL, MathML, etc. If you wish to validate specific content such as RSS/Atom feeds ...About · W3C Feed Validation Service · Help & FAQ · W3C Open Source Software
  41. [41]
    https://validator.w3.org/
  42. [42]
    DOMPurify - a DOM-only, super-fast, uber-tolerant XSS sanitizer for ...
    DOMPurify is a DOM-only, super-fast, uber-tolerant XSS sanitizer for HTML, MathML and SVG. It's also very simple to use and get started with.Releases · cure53/DOMPurify · Issues 0 · Pull requests 0 · ActionsMissing: 2010s | Show results with:2010s
  43. [43]
    aFarkas/html5shiv: This script is the defacto way to enable ... - GitHub
    The HTML5 Shiv enables use of HTML5 sectioning elements in legacy Internet Explorer and provides basic HTML5 styling for Internet Explorer 6-9, Safari 4.x (and ...
  44. [44]
    H74: Ensuring that opening and closing tags are used according to ...
    The objective of this technique is to avoid key errors that are known to cause problems for assistive technologies when they are trying to parse content.
  45. [45]
    HTML Standard
    Summary of each segment:
  46. [46]
    HTMLHint - Visual Studio Marketplace
    Oct 3, 2020 · The HTMLHint extension will run HTMLHint on your open HTML files and report the number of errors on the Status Bar with details in the Problems panel.
  47. [47]
    Add a linting and formatting workflow to your CI/CD pipeline using ...
    Apr 22, 2025 · Learn how to add a linting and formatting workflow to your CI/CD pipeline using Eslint and Prettier.Running Eslint And Prettier... · Automating Eslint And... · Testing Github Branch...
  48. [48]
    Frankenstein Migration: Framework-Agnostic Approach (Part 1)
    Sep 26, 2019 · “Fast” Migration: Gradual Migration #. Contrary to complete re-write, gradual migration does not require you to wait for the complete migration.
  49. [49]
    Bulletproof HTML: 37 Steps to Perfect Markup - SitePoint
    Feb 29, 2024 · What are the best practices for writing HTML markup? Best practices for writing HTML markup include keeping your code clean and organized ...
  50. [50]
    SEO Accessibility: Make Your Site Searchable for All
    Aug 4, 2025 · Fixing accessibility issues often improves UX metrics like bounce rate, time on page, and engagement: core signals in Google's ranking systems.Missing: bugs, | Show results with:bugs,
  51. [51]
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 - W3C
    May 6, 2025 · Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 covers a wide range of recommendations for making web content more accessible.Understanding WCAG · User Agent Accessibility · WCAG21 history · Errata
  52. [52]
    W3C Issues Improved Accessibility Guidance for Websites and ...
    Jun 5, 2018 · With WCAG 2.1, new standards help us create more versatile mobile content, as well as build improvements for users with low vision and cognitive ...
  53. [53]
    The Nu Html Checker (vnu)
    ### Summary of the Nu Html Checker (vnu)
  54. [54]
    HTML Tidy
    History. HTML Tidy was created by the W3C's own Dave Raggett back in the dawn of the Internet age. His original Internet page is still available and gives ...
  55. [55]
    beautifier/js-beautify: Beautifier for javascript - GitHub
    This little beautifier will reformat and re-indent bookmarklets, ugly JavaScript, unpack scripts packed by Dean Edward's popular packer, as well as partly ...
  56. [56]
    Web Developer - Chris Pederick
    The Web Developer extension adds various web developer tools to a browser. The extension is available for Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Opera.
  57. [57]
    Documentation Index for The W3C Markup Validation Service
    ### Summary of Limitations of W3C HTML Markup Validation Service