Nothing to report.

These are core elements of the XHTML Basic™, which is the "mother" of all XHTML-family based languages.

These are basic text elements of the XHTML Basic™, which is the "mother" of all XHTML-family based languages.

This module doesn't have directly presentational elements (for example B) but structural and phrasal elements. Blooberry alias Brian Wilson classify presentational elements as Physical styles and phrasal elements as Virtual styles. Physical Styles have direct affect to the presentation, but Virtual Styles don't have exactly defined physical effects, but they preserve the semantic meaning of the elements. W3C might have thought at the same way, when it classified SUB and SUP among Inline Presentational elements.

Because the sub-classification Inline Phrasal doesn't have SUB and SUP elements the the XHTML™ Basic doesn't have elements to express footnotes, simple mathematic formulas and some units (for example mm³). If SUB and SUP don't clear contain some semantic meaning also to non-visual browsers. We must ask, what could describe footnotes and units, which use superscript in non-visual browsers. If they don't have any kind of Virtual Styles, the information must be delivered through some phrasal elements with semantic classes (for example <var class="superscript">) or annotations.

In principle it is acceptable, that SPAN is called as a structural element, because it doesn't do anything by itself.

It is a basic element of the XHTML Basic™, which is the "mother" of all XHTML-family based languages. Only the element A belongs to this module. The element A can have several attributes, which belong different modules.

These are basic elements of the XHTML Basic™, which is the "mother" of all XHTML-family based languages.

It is consistent, that DIR and MENU are not in this module.

OBJECT belongs to the XHTML Basic™, which is the "mother" of all XHTML-family based languages.

Presumably APPLET doesn't belong to the basic DTD of XHTML 1.1 but is an additional module in XHTL-family languages.

In principle this module is unnecessary, but it is quite ok. The element HR is the only block level element in this module. Normally block-level elements are not used as presentational elements but instead structural and semantic (phrasal) elements. In my mind this is however partially correct, because HR has no content and it is commonly used as presentational purposes. It can be understood also structural to divide the content of the page to logical sections.

Browsers don't support the actual functionality of these elements.

Nothing to report.

Nothing to report.

But could the attribute cols added to the element TABLE, because WML 1.2 use it and if WML is in future a part of XHTML family, WML could need it. This attribute could increate the download speed, because the browser doesn't need to check how many columns the table has. I could have partially the same effect as table-layout:fixed, which I handle in my CSS-site.

These modules use the IMG element. Basic attributes to IMG are the same as in the XHTML 1.0 Strict document type except that usemap belongs to Server-side Image Map Module.

In addition to elements MAP and AREA, attributes coords and shape to A and usemap to OBJECT belong also to this module.

This is used with the Target Module.

This is commonly used with the Frames Module.

Read however notes to the usage of the attribute name from Name Identification Module.

Nothing to report.

Nothing to report.

The style attribute destroys the purpose of style sheets and it is not recommended to use. That's why it is an own module. But in some exceptional cases it might be reasonable to use it in handwritten documents.

In XHTML 1.1 the attribute name is in general deprecated in the use of name identification (= to work as a fragment identifier or an unique identifier of an element) to elements A, APPLET, FORM, IFRAME, FRAME, IMG, MAP and OBJECT. Because the Name Identification Module is deprecated, it is then highly non-recommended to use. If XHTML is delivered as XML, user agents, which follow strictly XML principles are not obliged to read the attribute name as the fragment identifier of the element. User agent might break this rule. That's why I have listed it in this table and in HTML 4.01/ XHTML 1.0 and XHTML 1.1 tables at the same background color as proprietary attributes. At least authors should define also id with the same value.

Because one the main aims of HTML 4.0 was to separate content and presentation from each others and replace FONT and other pure presentational elements and attributes with CSS, this module is used in exceptional cases, where users have much old browsers.

This is an internationalization module like the Bi-directional Text Module.