The World Wide Web consortium now regards the tag as outdated. Newer constructs are recommended.What's new?
closed as not constructive by w3d, John Conde♦ Nov 1 '12 at 14:02
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
You are probably referring to a message from some authoring software, presumably by Microsoft (it uses phrases like this). Consult the documentation of the software for explanations of its messages. But beware that messages like this may be misleading or outdated. They typically point to deprecation of elements in the HTML 4.01 specification, which is itself partly dated (the W3C is mostly rather silent about it and talks more about HTML5, though it’s still just a working draft).
It depends on the element how it can be replaced by newer constructs, typically some other element and the use of CSS. For a quick (and dirty?) reference, check out my Mapping presentational HTML to CSS. You might also consider using whatever tags do the job you want to get done, without worrying too much about flagging things as “outdated”, “deprecated”, or “obsolete” (which is often just an ideological position, though sometimes with practical grounds too); see my HTML Anarchist’s Leaflet.