any good online html code turtorial ?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by BOOGIEMAN, Apr 27, 2005.

  1. BOOGIEMAN

    BOOGIEMAN Guest

    Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?
    BOOGIEMAN, Apr 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 27 Apr 2005 02:28:16 -0700, "BOOGIEMAN" <>
    wrote:

    >Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?


    http://www.htmlhelp.org

    --
    Rex
    Jan Roland Eriksson, Apr 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. BOOGIEMAN

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Toby Inkster, Apr 28, 2005
    #3
  4. Toby Inkster wrote:
    > > Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?

    > http://www.htmldog.com/


    Excelent site! thanks for the link!

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Apr 28, 2005
    #4
  5. BOOGIEMAN

    BOOGIEMAN Guest

    On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:43:04 +0100, Toby Inkster wrote:
    >
    >> Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?

    >
    > http://www.htmldog.com/


    Thanks all
    BOOGIEMAN, Apr 28, 2005
    #5
  6. BOOGIEMAN

    info Guest

    On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 02:28:16 -0700, BOOGIEMAN wrote:

    > Can you recommend me some good web site with html code turtorial ?


    www.w3schools.com is a great site to learn HTML, XTHML, CSS, and much more...

    I have some links to other sites on a list I made for friends about how to
    start with web design:
    http://s94621231.onlinehome.us

    (sorry, I never got a real domain name for it since I made it for friends)
    info, Apr 30, 2005
    #6
  7. Jukka K. Korpela, Apr 30, 2005
    #7
  8. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >>www.w3schools.com is a great site to learn HTML, XTHML, CSS, and
    >>much more...

    > Assuming you already know virtually everything so that you can
    > distinguish the wrong advice from correct information.


    Can you sugest a better place (other than the specs) to learn?


    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Apr 30, 2005
    #8
  9. BOOGIEMAN

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Toby Inkster, Apr 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Toby Inkster <> wrote:

    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    >
    >> Can you sugest a better place (other than the specs) to learn?

    >
    > http://www.htmldog.com/


    From <http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/declarations/>:

    | Note that the DOCTYPE tag is a bit of a rebel and demands to be
    | written in upper case and adorned with an exclamation mark. It also
    | breaks the rules in that it is the only tag that doesn't need
    | closing.

    No, that can't be a good site for learning HTML.

    --
    David Håsäther
    David Håsäther, May 1, 2005
    #10
  11. BOOGIEMAN

    Toby Inkster Guest

    David Håsäther wrote:
    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.htmldog.com/

    >
    > From <http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/declarations/>:
    > | Note that the DOCTYPE tag is a bit of a rebel and demands to be
    > | written in upper case and adorned with an exclamation mark. It also
    > | breaks the rules in that it is the only tag that doesn't need
    > | closing.
    >
    > No, that can't be a good site for learning HTML.


    HTML Dog teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict, so it is perfectly correct in saying
    that it's the only tag that doesn't need a closing tag.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, May 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Toby Inkster <> wrote:

    > David Håsäther wrote:
    >> Toby Inkster wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.htmldog.com/

    >>
    >> From <http://htmldog.com/guides/htmladvanced/declarations/>:
    >> | Note that the DOCTYPE tag is a bit of a rebel and demands to be
    >> | written in upper case and adorned with an exclamation mark. It
    >> | also breaks the rules in that it is the only tag that doesn't
    >> | need closing.
    >>
    >> No, that can't be a good site for learning HTML.

    >
    > HTML Dog teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict, so it is perfectly correct in
    > saying that it's the only tag that doesn't need a closing tag.
    >


    The point is that it isn't a tag at all. It's a markup declaration.

    --
    David Håsäther
    David Håsäther, May 1, 2005
    #12
  13. BOOGIEMAN

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sun, 01 May 2005 14:39:23 +0100, Toby Inkster
    <> wrote:

    >HTML Dog teaches XHTML 1.0 Strict, so it is perfectly correct in saying
    >that it's the only tag that doesn't need a closing tag.


    "Although older versions of HTML lazily allowed some tags not to be
    closed, latest standards require all tags to be closed. "
    (also from HTMLdog)

    When it's so easy to word things like this _correctly_, there's no
    excuse for a tutorial to use lax or misleading phrasing.

    I'm reminded of some CIW course material I was reading last week that
    taught XHTML. However it treated XHTML as if it were simply "HTML 5",
    didn't once mention XML, and still taught the use of things like a
    valign attribute.

    Those who can't, shouldn't attempt to teach.


    --
    Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.
    Andy Dingley, May 1, 2005
    #13
  14. BOOGIEMAN

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:

    > still taught the use of things like a valign attribute.


    Why not? valign ain't been deprecated yet.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, May 1, 2005
    #14
  15. BOOGIEMAN

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:56:26 +0100, Toby Inkster
    <> wrote:

    >Why not? valign ain't been deprecated yet.


    Well it ought to be. Here's a course that is taking such a hardcore
    minimal "current best practice only" viewpoint that they're teaching
    XHTML as the only possible HTML version to use, even in the absence of
    any explanation as to what XML is about. Then they screw it all up by
    sticking with vlink and valign. This teaches a partial view of the HTML
    world, a view that's not useful or self-consistent (whether you favour
    3.2 or X), and a view that's extremely confusing to the poor student.
    It's not only leaving the students in a poor state for achieving any
    decent results, it means there's a whole lot of re-education needed
    before you can begin to fix things.

    When I teach HTML I begin with 2.0 ("Hello World" in a <p> and no
    doctype). Then I introduce a useful subset of the elements from 4.01.
    Then CSS and a bit of presentation control. Then DTDs and the concept of
    validity in element nesting. Finally XML, XML well-formedness and XHTML.

    Students can stop at any point, and they've learned and understood
    everything they've been shown up to that point. What they know might
    only be partial, but it's never up a dead end that they'd need to
    un-learn before proceeding.
    Andy Dingley, May 2, 2005
    #15
  16. BOOGIEMAN

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:

    > Well [valign] ought to be [deprecated].


    In your opinion. And in mine as it happens. But Dave Raggett et al
    presumably had some reason for keeping the aligny thingies for tables.

    I somehow think that if the default vertical alignment in table cells were
    "top", then they wouldn't have bothered leaving this attribute in. It's
    only left in because of the silly default "middle", which is almost
    universally over-ridden by authors.

    > Here's a course that is taking such a hardcore minimal "current best
    > practice only" viewpoint that they're teaching XHTML as the only
    > possible HTML version to use, even in the absence of any explanation as
    > to what XML is about.


    It's meant to be a very simple tutorial. Teaching multiple versions of
    (X)HTML would complicate things.

    > Then they screw it all up by sticking with vlink and valign.


    From what I can see, the vlink attribute is mentioned exactly once on
    htmldog. This is under the "Attributes" subheading of the "Bad Tags" page.
    The same page that says:

    | font, which could be used to define the font name, size
    | and colour of an element has gained a deserved reputation
    | of being the notoriously mischievous evil goblin lord of
    | Tagworld. Old sites (even some new ones) have font tags
    | splattered all over their pages like a plague of termites.

    It says of vlink:

    | So you might think you're using the good tags, but there
    | are a few pesky parasitical attributes lurking about that
    | might turn them sour. [...] link, alink, vlink could be
    | used within the body tag to specify the colour of links
    | (non-visited, active and visited). CSS baby - :link,
    | :active and :visited all do the job.

    I personally don't count a description such as "vlinks are parasitical"
    followed by a pointer to a CSS alternative as "sticking with vlinks".

    And valign is only mentioned in the HTML Tags reference -- it is not
    mentioned at all in the tutorial.

    The HTML Tags reference is simply a list of elements denfined in XHTML 1.0
    Strict with very brief descriptions, a list of required and optional
    attributes and cross-references to the tutorial.

    > When I teach HTML I begin with 2.0 ("Hello World" in a <p> and no
    > doctype). Then I introduce a useful subset of the elements from 4.01.
    > Then CSS and a bit of presentation control. Then DTDs and the concept of
    > validity in element nesting. Finally XML, XML well-formedness and XHTML.
    >
    > Students can stop at any point, and they've learned and understood
    > everything they've been shown up to that point.


    Well, that's your method and it doesn't sound bad.

    I happen to like HTML Dog's approach though. I find it succinct and
    accurate.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, May 2, 2005
    #16
  17. BOOGIEMAN

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:51:01 +0100, Toby Inkster
    <> wrote:

    >Andy Dingley wrote:
    >
    >> Well [valign] ought to be [deprecated].

    >
    >In your opinion. And in mine as it happens. But Dave Raggett et al
    >presumably had some reason for keeping the aligny thingies for tables.


    In the spec then I think it should be permitted - that's the spec of '97
    - not a good time to be throwing it away. I'm talking about its use
    in the teaching of HTML in 2005, specifically in reference to CIW's
    training materials rather than HTMLDog.
    Andy Dingley, May 2, 2005
    #17
  18. BOOGIEMAN

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Andy Dingley wrote:

    > I'm talking about its use in the teaching of HTML in 2005, specifically
    > in reference to CIW's training materials rather than HTMLDog.


    Ah. I missed those three letters earlier and still thought we were talking
    about HTMl Dog.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, May 2, 2005
    #18
  19. BOOGIEMAN

    noSpAm0000 Guest

    On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:29:17 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

    > info <> wrote:
    >
    >> www.w3schools.com is a great site to learn HTML, XTHML, CSS, and
    >> much more...

    >
    > Assuming you already know virtually everything so that you can
    > distinguish the wrong advice from correct information.


    What wrong information did you find on w3schools? I learned from that
    site but haven't gone through it in a long time.
    noSpAm0000, May 4, 2005
    #19
  20. BOOGIEMAN

    noSpAm0000 Guest

    On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:58:32 -0400, Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >>>www.w3schools.com is a great site to learn HTML, XTHML, CSS, and
    >>>much more...

    >> Assuming you already know virtually everything so that you can
    >> distinguish the wrong advice from correct information.

    >
    > Can you sugest a better place (other than the specs) to learn?


    I still think w3schools.com is a great place to learn. I learned HTML &
    XHTML there and expanded on that knowledge from other sites. I think that
    w3schools is great because it gives you a quick introduction to a lot of
    different things. It also has references so you can go back and find HTML
    color tables, lists of HTML tags, etc. The site is very well organized
    and you will be able to go back and find information quickly even if you
    forgot which page you originally saw it on.

    You can find a whole list of HTML tutorials and other web design
    stuff here:
    http://s94621231.onlinehome.us
    noSpAm0000, May 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
  2. Mike G.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,000
    Hywel
    Feb 24, 2004
  3. nani
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    378
  4. chinni
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    383
    chinni
    Nov 20, 2009
  5. Patrick Rutledge
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    401
    Roedy Green
    Jan 31, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page