You have never seen HTML used to build something that a human might look at? What are you looking at right now? Aren&#x27;t you looking at a web page? Aren&#x27;t you human? Aren&#x27;t you using your eyes to see what I&#x27;ve written? Unless you &quot;View Source&quot; on every page you visit, you are looking at the GUI, not the structured information.<p>If you think HTML can be used to send structured information, I would urge to read the essay that Mark Pilgrim wrote in 2004. I posted the link before.<p>Also, please consider all the many arguments that Sam Ruby has made against HTML-as-structured-data. From 2005 forward, there were many people who wanted HTML5 to be an extension of XHTML, but as Sam Ruby kept asking &quot;Why should we call something XML if it is clearly not XML?&quot; Over the years, in his role as co-Chair of the W3C working group, he kept making the point that &quot;draconian error checking&quot; is part of the XML spec, and it can not be reconciled to people&#x27;s actual use of the Web. That is why HTML5 relaxed all the rules regarding validation and structure.<p>This is Sam Ruby in 2009:<p>&quot;So, while I doubt that I will ever understand why there are people who insist on calling their pages they produce with the intention of being processed as HTML by the name “XHTML”, I can’t deny that there clearly is something that such people want.  (By way of comparison, I am quite happy to say that this page is served as XHTML to browsers that support such, and as HTML to browsers that don’t).  From my experience, this is tricky stuff, and not something that should be recommended lightly.)&quot;<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;intertwingly.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2009&#x2F;07&#x2F;19&#x2F;Humpty-Dumpty" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;intertwingly.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2009&#x2F;07&#x2F;19&#x2F;Humpty-Dumpty</a>