Which it in most cases is. HTML isn't *as* bad as the protocol ignores the unknown, so the result is often still usable even if the layout is broken. In the worst case, a peek into the page's source code usually reveals the desired information.

The words, when introduced as standard, had their original meaning that still applies. That the clueless majority seized the words and twisted their apparent meaning doesn't change their original, standardized meaning. There is maybe a de-facto pseudo-standard, but the de-jure standard stays what it was 30 years ago.

The Clueless Journalists? Their level of incompetence in technical matters is staggering. As an example, for countless times I had to read reports from "Silicone Valley" (translation of a mistranslation). Not that that place wouldn't exist - but it is somehow southern from the originally intended place and is rather known by the name Hollywood. Then the Clueless Plebs reads their daily print of USA Today, and pick up the faulty meanings as the true ones "because it was in the newspapers so it has to be true". Bah.