Best Online Tutorials to learn html, xhtml, etc.?

[about_that_time]

Hi,

Just trying to get started learning all this stuff. I've been reading
www.htmlgoodies.com which I think explains everything very well, but is
obviously very outdated, and www.w3schools.com, which is mostly the opposite
(up to date, but doesn't do very well at all of explaining the whys and
hows. . .well, especially the whys). I've also checked out
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/, which seems good, but not very
comprehensive. Does anyone have a quick link that would work better than
these three?

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

 

[Ed Mullen]

Hi,

Just trying to get started learning all this stuff. I've been reading
www.htmlgoodies.com which I think explains everything very well, but is
obviously very outdated, and www.w3schools.com, which is mostly the opposite
(up to date, but doesn't do very well at all of explaining the whys and
hows. . .well, especially the whys). I've also checked out
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/, which seems good, but not very
comprehensive. Does anyone have a quick link that would work better than
these three?

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

For what it's worth, here are a bunch I've collected over the years.

http://edmullen.net/temp/cssHTML.html

 

[David Dorward]

Just trying to get started learning all this stuff. I've been reading
www.htmlgoodies.com which I think explains everything very well,

It doesn't. I seem to recall that last time I looked it had an average of
one serious error per paragraph.

but is obviously very outdated, and www.w3schools.com, which is mostly the
opposite (up to date, but doesn't do very well at all of explaining the
whys and hows. . .well, especially the whys).

W3Schools also tends to have errors - but far more subtle ones.

I've also checked out http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/, which seems good,
but not very comprehensive.

Also out of date. The code is a mix of HTML 3.2 and 4.01 Transitional. These
days you should generally be writing HTML 4.01 Strict (which discards most
of the legacy stuff CSS can now handle).

Does anyone have a quick link that would work better than
these three?

To be honest, I haven't found anything better then the specification. It's
rather dry and not written as a tutorial, but its accurate and the
information is hard to beat.

http://w3.org/TR/html4/

 

[Stan McCann]

It doesn't. I seem to recall that last time I looked it had an
average of one serious error per paragraph.


W3Schools also tends to have errors - but far more subtle ones.


Also out of date. The code is a mix of HTML 3.2 and 4.01
Transitional. These days you should generally be writing HTML 4.01
Strict (which discards most of the legacy stuff CSS can now handle).


To be honest, I haven't found anything better then the
specification. It's rather dry and not written as a tutorial, but
its accurate and the information is hard to beat.

http://w3.org/TR/html4/

Yep, that's what I use. It's fairly easy to look down the list of
elements. Then, when one looks like it might be appropriate, read the
details.

For much of the other details, usenet is the best. Subscribe to
several appropriate groups and read enough to determine the lamers from
the ones that know what they are talking about. Pay attention to what
the latter write.

Be careful of books. Every book I have reviewed uses a transitional
doctype and lots of deprecated elements and attributes. I am starting
to get serious about putting my notes together this summer and writing
my own book using zero deprecated items, HTML 4.01 strict (and why) and
CSS 2.1 pointing out the unsupported properties.

It's pretty sad when 2005 books teach 1995 methodology.

 

[about_that_time]

Be careful of books. Every book I have reviewed uses a transitional
doctype and lots of deprecated elements and attributes. I am starting
to get serious about putting my notes together this summer and writing
my own book using zero deprecated items, HTML 4.01 strict (and why) and
CSS 2.1 pointing out the unsupported properties.

Yeah, but, the problem is that I don't even know what a doctype IS. Now that
site looked great, if I already had an idea. But it just seems the equilvent
of going from putting a band aid on my finger to doing open heart surgery.

Nonetheless, I'll study it in detail over the weekend. And many thanks.


Jeff

 

[David Dorward]

Yeah, but, the problem is that I don't even know what a doctype IS.

It does cover that ...

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.1