This tweet, posted almost a month ago, stuck in my brain. It begs a question of where that HTML came from? CMS? JS Frameworks? Is it down to awful structure? HTML was never that semantic and promises of better never evolved. Living standard, no adaptation? HTML is anti-semantic!
This tweet is unavailable

May 11, 2020 · 2:44 PM UTC

2
2
9
Replying to @mholzschlag
Yeah. We’ve known since the ‘90s that doing this stuff deliberately (read: by hand) is the only way to do it right. The current wave of generators is making things like the attached image. This is from Instagram, captured just now.
1
2
I need two showers now.
2
Replying to @mholzschlag
Hmm. I've heard of languages that compile down to HTML, like Elm. But would Elm be considered more "semantic" if its syntax and structure look more like Java or Scala than natural language? And would it necessarily be more "accessible" if it used keyphrases instead of tags?
1
1
2
This tweet is unavailable
We have some meaning and some structure, absolutely. So it's not useless, it's just limited. Divs are a great example. They do have a meaning: Division. But, 400 of them and meaning gets lost, so as you say, "not so much." So is it the over-div issue mostly for #a11y and HTML?