And then it took some 20-ish years for CSS to finally realize that aligning to a grid is a good idea and, through a long, painful, incremental process, eventually reinvent tables for layout.
I mean, semantics are also good! Yes, CSS grids are a lot like tables in some ways, but not having to add 25% more DOM elements to fake a table layout (display: table/table-row/table-cell; that's 3 divs for one row!) is also a thing to be celebrated. Plus, in practice, grid is a lot more powerful than doing a few common layouts. Grid took so long precisely because they were trying to think a little further ahead rather than just pushing something out into the world and hoping it works out. Thankfully web standards have matured and are more careful not to repeat mistakes like the debacle that was CSS property prefixes.
>I mean, semantics are also good! Yes, CSS grids are a lot like tables in some ways, but not having to add 25% more DOM elements to fake a table layout (display: table/table-row/table-cell; that's 3 divs for one row!) is also a thing to be celebrated.
Semantics in the context of CSS is a stupid idea web designers came up with. They heard the concept of "semantic", and had to fit it in, to appear smart. Should have asked actual developers.
(the so-called "semantic web" was another such failed idea dragged on for an eternity for research grands. Remember RDF? What fun!)
The semantics is not the job for HTML, which is the final artifact for display, and not a data interchange format, nor the format you store your info as. So there's no need for it to be semantically clean and "parsable/reusable" (to do what? web-scrap it? As for screen-readers, there are official metadata annotations for those - not to mention they wouldn't know to do anything special for each ad-hoc different "semantic" tag soup people come up with with the severely limited for that reason HTML5 tags, or worse divs).
The semantics belong to whatever backend and metadata you have your content in, before it gets rendered as HTML.
And if you need to also give it to users in parsable/reusable form, allow them to query a JSON (or structured) version.
Yeah, it's a joke. You can't take "HTML semantics" seriously when you often depend on actual element position IN THE HTML CODE to make things work, specially when modern web design demands elements to just JUMP AROUND all over the page when the width changes.
If they really wanted semantics you would think there would be actual support for that.
By the way, I've asked this question here some other day, but nobody has any idea if most "semantic" tags are being used for anything at all (and Wordpress naturally uses all of them wrong, so there is no point even bothering).
There's not much software that takes semantic HTML as input, because barely anyone writes semantically-valid HTML. It's a vicious cycle. (Look upon the parsing rules for a high-quality screen reader, and weep.)
No point making a semantic web browser before we get a semantic WYSIWYM HTML editor. Maybe those could be the same program, like in olden times?
> but not having to add 25% more DOM elements to fake a table layout
I'm not the most current, but as I remember in CSS tables those table-internal elements generate the needed anonymous boxes of rows, tbodys and such, when those arent't specified:
Nah, semantics are worthless. The whole semantic web idea never took off for good reasons, HTML5 semantic tags don't have any meaningful semantics and you can't even reliably remove boilerplate from HTML without ML pipelines (a basic use case you'd expect any "semantic" document format to nail easily). Then the invention of LLMs killed it twice over.
HTML is a graphics rendering language in denial about its true nature.
Grid took a long time because everything takes a long time when you have to align mutually competing organizations and there's no profit motive involved with the actual work itself. There's no real technical benefits to CSS layout over table tags. A table tag isn't a heavy object. CSS cascade calculations on the other hand ...
I suggest you spend some time with a screen reader or have a look at the accessibility tab of you browser to get a feel of the worth of semantic web.
It's true you won't ever have a perfect semantic representation of a page (and I have no idea how blind people manage those infinite scroller), but in my mind having <nav> or <div role="nav"> instead of <div class="my_non_standard_nav_classname"> still helps a lot on that aspect.
I use Shortcat all the time which relies heavily on the accessibility tree.
Screen readers / accessibility tools don't use the semantic web. The semantic web doesn't exist, it refers to the Tim Berners-Lee vision of documents being XML or RDF data structures with schemas, transformed into pixels using stylesheets and XSL:T. It never happened for various reasons.
CSS tables can have grid-auto-flow as dense, which is quite helpful at rare times. You obviously could do that wit tables + js, but it's nice to not have to worry about the implementation details.
