HTML 5 <dialog> : More Proof Of What Modern “Web Standards” Bodies Actually Are

From the first time I was introduced to HTML 5, I felt like it was made by people who never truly embraced HTML 4 Strict. It’s not as much of a love letter to HTML 3.2 as HTML / CSS frameworks like Bootcrap, Failwind, and their ilk… but it does flip the bird at 4 Strict’s notion of reducing the number of tags, simplifying the specification, and so forth.

From accepting the <embed> tag into the specification (redundant to <object>); <hgroup> showing they didn’t even know what numbered headings mean (a tradition of f*** accessibility the WAI continues with WCAG 2.2… which is great when the accessibility guidelines say F*** accessibility); <section> created as an alternative to headings now requires headings (which farking is it?)… Don’t even get me started about <aside> where the only grammatical / properly semantic reason for it doesn’t tend to come up unless your transcribing Deadpool, Ferris Bueller, or the Bard. Thus resulting in people using it in such a presentational manner it might as well be <center> or <font>!

Since if you’re using it to declare a “section that’s off to one side” that isn’t part of the actual content — such a as a site navigation bar or advvertising — you don’t understand the point of HTML semantics.

And then there’s the pointless, redundant, nonsensical

What Do You Mean Pointless And Redundant?

There are two types of “modal dialogs” we can really talk about. Static ones such as contact forms, help, and menus. And non-static / generated ones for scripting driven discussions like alerts and confirmations.

The Redundant : Static Dialogs

If you have a modal in the markup of something like a contact form or your hamburger/modal menu… take this example page from another article of mine: https://cutcodedown.com/for_others/medium_articles/htmlCSSProperly/template.html#contact

In both of the modal dialogs available on that page, the “dialog” behavior is screen media specific. Thus being a PRESENTATIONAL concept of what’s just another subsection of the page for other user-agents. Especdially since they are fully functional without JavaScript via on-page hash linking. As evidenced by the above URL opening the #contact dialog on screen, scrolling down and/or “soft focusing” the dialog like any other hash link.

There is ZERO reason in either of the dialogs on that page for the PRESENTATIONAL concept of a dialog to be conveyed as semantic markup, because it is a screen media only concept!

What do I keep saying, the point of HTML is to convey meaning to users of ALL media types, NOT JUST SCREEN! That’s what HTML was created to do. That’s what it’s for. That’s what HTML 3 and browser makers pissed on from orbit, and what 4 Strict and CSS pulled us back from the brink of!

The Pointless : Non-Static / Dynamic / Generated Dialogs

When it comes to things like alerts, confirmations, and the like these are inherently scripting driven, and thus have no business in the HTML in the first place! Why? Because scripting off all they do is confuse the user with non-functional non-content elements. Thus anything that is scripting only when/where/as possible should be added from the scripting.

Lemme just re-emphasize that:

Scripting only elements when possible have no business in the HTML as they mean absolutely nothing to non-JavaScript users!

Which is half of why “onevent” attributes are stupid (the other half being the need for global function scope), around half the “ARIA role” BS is stupid, and so forth.

As scripting only elements, there is no real reason for the meaning “dialog” to be conveyed as different from

To put it as clearly and succinctly as possible: It is not information non-screen users need!

But Worse? The LIES!

I’ve seen five or six articles the past month with people just talking out their freaking hung-boles about it.

The Biggest Lie: “It Doesn’t Need JavaScript!”

DAFUQ you say? This is REALLY stupid when people say it as they then follow it up showing how to open/close it using… JavaScript. The <dialog> element applies ZERO non-scripted behavior to the page, does not work as a dialog without scripting, so just what the blue blazes are these jokers even talking about?

When pressed, they say it means you can declare it in the markup without generating it from JavaScript… Isn’t that the OPPOSITE of the entire point?

Let me say it again! If it’s scripting only, what the bloody blue blazes is it doing in the markup?

Something that likely helps explain why I think JSX is wuck-fitted trash.

Tell Me Another One Josephine: “It’s Easier”

FFS not the “easier” glittering generality. How is using this tag, having to trigger it with JS, easier than simply using SECTION, FORM, or NAV (especially when the dialog behavior is optional on screen width) with window.localtion.hash? Thanks to CSS’ :target you don’t even NEED JavaScript to target it for static “dialogs”, and if you do want to add one for scripting only use the same mechanism can be leveraged in an EASIER manner.

So often when people say “easier” I just sit here going “HOW?!?”. Then I realize they’re card-stacking by comparing to some alf-hassed twenty-year out of date technique. Techniques so stupid you might as well go back to using onmouseover / onmouseout attributes in the markup for hover states.

But They Keep Coming: “It’s Better For Accessibility”

HOW? What possible information for non-screen non-scripted users are you conveying that they need or would even care about? If anything, using a hash link :target driven is more accessible because it actually *SHOCK* moves the user to the section… Whilst dialog doesn’t even seem to (at least not on my braille reader)

As I keep saying, half the time it’s a presentational concept having no business in the markup on accessibility grounds, the other half the time you’ve already tossed accessibility down a flight of stairs with “Scripting only” solutions.

It’s sad when “better for accessibility” starts to become a lame copout utterly unsupporteed by facts. We saw it with the HTML “structural” tags, and it continues with tags like

They’re saying it because they know most “normal” people will believe it out of fear, ignorance, and wishful thinking. In no way, shape, or form does that mean it is true!

Conclusion

For some reason the folks at the WhatWG — and by extension the toothless spineless W3C — seem to keep wanting to make pointless, stupid, redundant changes to the specification without actually fixing deeper rooted issues. Much of it I think stems from them clearly being filled with people who never embraced the separation of concerns, never understood what semantic markup even means or is for, and by their own admission having created a specification based on what people were doing 15-20 years ago, not what people SHOULD be doing.

When 15 to 20 years ago the majority of quacks, morons, and fools were still vomiting up HTML 3.2 under the guise of 4 Tranny. Transitional in this case literally meaning “in transition from 1997 to 1998 development practices”.

But I guess that’s just par for the course with frauds like Otto, Thornton, and Wathan building monuments to the presentational markup mentality. When “presentation first” is hot and trendy again, no shock to see even the specification get dragged back in times 20+ years recreating every last mistake that was made in HTML 3.2! The same way garbage like CENTER, FONT, ALIGN, COLOR, BACKGROUND, BGCOLOR, LINK, VLINK, and abuse of TABLE for layout shart all over HTML in their time.

From TFOOT before TBODY now being invalid, to EMBED and target=”_blank” being valid, to garbage redundancies like AUDIO, VIDEO, DIALOG and HGROUP, to things that shouldn’t even have tags like CANVAS… It’s all repeating the mistakes of the past.

I really have zero confidence in the alleged “standards bodies” currently running this circus of clowns, freaks, and snake oil peddling carny-barkers.

They’re dragging us back to the same problems we had back in 1997. It’s the same herp just a different derp.

Not surprising in the slightest that many of the same people are involved. “Big Names” that to be frank, don’t have the greatest track records to be treated as “authorities” on the subject. In fact, that’s why many of them formed the WhatWG after being shown the door at the W3C!

Though to be fair, It’s not like I’m not just some “rando on the web”

Ouch, that was painfully self-aware. But of course I’m the one “stuck in the past” and “hating everything new” because I’m — *checks notes* — pointing out how they’re recreating past mistakes. Yup, that seems legit.