One thing I wish for in HTML is a de-emphasis element. Maybe it could be called dem. To an extent I fake this effect with code like <span class="fade">, which with my CSS produces a whisper like this, but the semantic content of a span element with a class applied is pretty thin. That class could be anything, and span just selects a certain piece of inline content.

No, what I want is a proper de-emphasis element. After all, we have two levels of emphasis, em and strong, so why not dem?

Actually, this leads me onto a bigger issue that I have with HTML (and XHTML, for that matter): semantically, it’s weak. There just aren’t enough elements to mark up a document well. This, of course, cry the futurists, is where XML comes in: you can create your own, internally consistent markup language, with all the elements you want. But is this realistic? Will most of us actually do it? Of course not. What is needed is a brand of XML that will be strong enough to mark up the majority of documents on the web, so lazy people like me can use it. And, no doubt, one (more likely loads) is being created, or already has been.

This leads me onto my second problem: support. HTML is (mostly) a de facto standard, because most browsers support most elements. But what are the odds that the majority of the browser market will support XML properly at the point where most of us (developers) really start to want to use it for everyday document markup? Slim and none?

Perhaps I’m being overly pessimistic; perhaps I just don’t understand the current state of markup language creation and usage, or the browser market and the way it will change in the next few years as Microsoft get their act together or everyone switches to Firefox. But maybe we’re going to have another decade of frustration. I don’t think, right now, I’d lay odds on the former over the latter.